Greyhounds are racing dogs. Sausage dogs (Dachshund) are labeled bad runners. Of course, this prejudice is socially constructed and has no foundation in rality. Race is only skin deep. From birth on, parents and dog owners are indoctrinated that they can not run well.. Remedial running classes and sausage quotas in races are needed to right past discriminatory wrongs.

In reality, Sausage dogs are born with the same running capacity as greyhounds. Saying otherwise is racist.

Sausage dogs discriminated in dog racing

Once sausage dogs overcome social prejudice, they will be able to compete in the Greyhound Race. As there are many more sausage dogs then greyhounds, a 50% quote for sausage dogs in dog races is only fair to remedy centuries of discriminatory practices.

Pigmy quotas needed in Olympic races

Similarly, pigmies grow up being indoctrinated they can not win Olympic marathons or 100 m dashes. Of course, with affirmative action and special remedial running classes, this can be remedied.

242 Comments

I think any reasonable person can see a difference between analyzing running ability and mental ability.

There are clear anatomical differences between a Greyhound and a Wiener Dog that accounts for their different potentials for running ability and a test of speed is very easy to control for.

Intelligence on the other hand is not. Intelligence is an abstract concept. There are many theories on the nature and heritability of intelligence. Intelligence testing is not a hard science. Can you give me a list of the Top 10 smartest dogs based on intelligence testing? There are animal psychologists out there interested in animal intelligence so this is not an unreasonable request.

If you are having difficulty doing this you should consider why. Not too many people are interested in ranking the intelligence of dog breeds. A handful are interested in ranking races most likely because they have racist agendas. Most scholars agree that nature and nurture play a factor in intelligence which is about 50% genetic and 50% environmental in influence.

With that much environmental influence a purely environmental or cultural model for group differences in IQ is not at all unreasonable.

Social discrimination has an obvious and undoubtedly profound influence on racial disparities in Socioeconomic status. Not even the most committed of racialist scholars denies this. They simply insist on a genetic component.

In order to lend credibility to a genetic hypothesis you need a biological rationale. Rushton has gone the route of using the theory of evolution to support his racialist claims. However he has failed miserably as he was debunked by actual evolutionary biologists.

admin says:

Let me illustrate this for you by analogy. Technically, an American pit bull terrier and an English golden retriever are exactly the same species. They can produce offspring, if crossbred.

The former was bred to exhibit certain characteristics – wanton aggression, propensity to fight, physical strength, powerful bite, and so on. The latter was bred to retrieve birds shot and killed by its masters, and to do this, it has to have a docile, placid, non-aggressive nature; otherwise it would treat what it found as its own kill and refuse to hand it over.

Now imagine that your small children, aged maybe two or three years old, are going to be locked in a room with five or six of those dogs, and the dogs haven’t been fed for a week.

Great comment! This is a clear example of character traits, like propensity to violent crime. Of course, Egalitarianjay will say that whites are better at organized, disciplined killing and genocide, omitting that blacks clearly, by any statistics, create more gang and other violent crime mayhem in their neighborhood.

Not to excuse the disciplined “legal” genocide, but an organized police force doing crimes by the legal code is different from thugs doing street violence

First of all I think that was a terrible analogy. Why in the world would you leave a hungry dog alone with a child? They are both likely to kill the kids. The argument ofcourse is that dog breeds differ in temperament. This is true but they were bred that way. If you selectively breed a group together who exhibit a certain trait odds are they well express that trait with a high frequency.

But humans were never selectively bred like that.

So the biological basis for difference in temperament between dogs and humans are not the same. Rushton tried to claim a selective pressure based on adopting different reproductive strategy but his theory was proven to be false.

As for crime rate Admin I would argue that a culture tolerating atrocities such as slavery and genocide (crimes against humanity) are far more representative of a population than crime rates because it involves a larger groups of people having a sinister mindset. The “discipline” of the crime is irrelevant it’s still a crime.

As for Black crime rates first of all African-American criminals are disproportionately represented in violent crime cases however it is not universally true that Blacks are more criminal than Whites across the globe. Several Eastern European countries have higher crime rates than several African countries. Crime is correlated with poverty and poor upbringing which is influenced by drug abuse. Crime is also not a concrete concept as what constitutes a crime differs from region to region.

Most human societies agree on unacceptable violent behavior but again atrocities like genocide represent violence on a larger scale. There is no universal hierarchy in violent crime nor is one group of people more inclined towards violence due to genetics than another. There’s simply no evidence of that.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS: As for Black crime rates first of all African-American criminals are disproportionately represented in violent crime cases however it is not universally true that Blacks are more criminal than Whites across the globe. Several Eastern European countries have higher crime rates than several African countries. Crime is correlated with poverty and poor upbringing which is influenced by drug abuse. Crime is also not a concrete concept as what constitutes a crime differs from region to region

Morpheus tends to ignore the effects that third world immigration has on crime rates.

If we look to the works of J. Phillipe Rushton we can discover, using older statistics, from interpol records that worldwide crime tends to be prevalent in nations with vast black majority populations:

In the United States we see that black populations are overrepresented in everything from hate crime to serial killing statistics. In fact 7 out of the top 10 American murder states have larger black populations.

The selective breeding argument is ridiculous. Supposing if a new dog breed is bred through hybridization due to geographical location. Does this invalidate the traits the breed would possess in comparison to other breeds? The answer is no…

The existence of various traits within differing groups within a species is proof positive that such vast differences exist. No brainer huh?

MORPHEUS: As for crime rate Admin I would argue that a culture tolerating atrocities such as slavery and genocide (crimes against humanity) are far more representative of a population than crime rates because it involves a larger groups of people having a sinister mindset. The “discipline” of the crime is irrelevant it’s still a crime.

FRANK: I debated this issue with EgalitarianJay or Morpheus on the Phora. What he ignores is that many of these atrocities are actually common place in modern Africa. The latest mass “genocide” was in Darfur while a more recent one was in Rwanda.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, practices like slavery, war, cannibalism, female genital mutilation, violent racism and murder are still widely practiced. In fact, blood rituals and witchcraft are prevalent in many African nations and part of the common culture. Rape is a blood sport in many African nations.

He also ignores that most of the atrocities he speaks of in Europe took place during the times of war and conflict when humans were at their worse. He also ignores the facts that it was Europe that abolished slavery in Africa while creating human rights legislation geared toward curbing future atrocities.

EgalitarianJay: And how many of those immigrants are non-White? The fact is that some of the countries with the highest murder rates in the world are overwhelmingly majority White such as Ukraine, Belarus, Romania and Italy. Rushton aggregates countries by continent to come to his conclusions about race and crime. I’m talking about going country by country.

FRANK: I debated this issue with EgalitarianJay or Morpheus on the Phora. What he ignores is that many of these atrocities are actually common place in modern Africa…..He also ignores that most of the atrocities he speaks of in Europe took place during the times of war and conflict when humans were at their worse. He also ignores the facts that it was Europe that abolished slavery in Africa while creating human rights legislation geared toward curbing future atrocities.

EgalitarianJay: Don’t lie Frank. I didn’t ignore any of your points I addressed all of that. Using the fog of war argument is an excuse and there was no full scale war going on that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was a part of. The U.S. army was the one who waged war on Native American nations under the philosophy of Manifest Destiny. I also acknowledge that Egalitarian minded Whites made reforms to end degeneracy within their culture that doesn’t change the fact that it happened.

FRANK: Yet, you are the same person who religiously argued against a “racial hierarchy” of ability on the Phora?

EgalitarianJay: Did you not read that part where I said there were differences and commonalities? I stand by my claim that Rushton is a racialist as his theories fit the definition of that word. Acknowledging some biologically based differences in ability between humans does not make one an advocate of racialism. Claiming that Egalitarians insist we are all the same is a strawmen.

EgalitarianJay: There is debate within the scientific community about the nature of intelligence and how to measure it. Many scholars such as Howard Gardner are critical of the idea that a person’s intelligence can be characterized by a single numerical unit.

I had no trouble doing so, should I declare the author of the above link a Collie-Supremacist?

EgalitarianJay: Hmmm….

“Just as everyone wants to have smart kids, most people want to own clever dogs. However whether a dog is “smart” or “dumb” depends upon the specific aspects of its behavior we consider. For example, was Nobel Prize-winning physicist Albert Einstein intelligent? Obviously, to derive the theory of relativity required a mathematical genius. Yet Einstein was so bad at simple arithmetic that his checkbook was always out of balance.

Intelligence has a variety of different dimensions. In human beings we might subdivide intelligence into verbal ability, numerical ability, logical reasoning, memory, and so forth. The intelligence of dogs also has several different aspects, among which we recognize three major dimensions. The first is called instinctive intelligence. This really refers to what a dog was bred for. For example, herding dogs were bred to herd animals. Their ability to round up animals, keep them close together, and drive them in a particular direction is inborn and only requires human intervention to keep it under control and to give it a bit of direction.

Different breeds obviously have different types of instinctive intelligence. Guard dogs watch over things, retrievers fetch, hounds track or pursue, pointers sniff out birds and indicate their location by pointing, while companion dogs are attuned to human social signals and respond to our moods to provide comfort. Every dog has an instinctive intelligence, but it is senseless to make comparisons across breeds as to which are “smarter” in this respect—their abilities are simply too different to compare.”

Coren seems to agree with Howard Gardner that there are multiple intelligences and that only when controlling for specific types of intelligence can you feasibly rank dogs based on mental ability (they controlled for working and obedience).

That’s very interesting however as I said before humans were not selectively bred by dogs. There is no biological rationale for claiming major cognitive differences exist between so-called races.

By the way Frank have you re-considered debating the Wikipedia editors you accused of vandalizing Wiki articles related to Rushton and the Race and Intelligence debate? I’m sure all of the readers here would be interested to know that I have agreed to debate Rushton himself on The Phora under the condition that Frank debate those Wikipedia editors!

Frank says:

MORPHEUS: Most scholars agree that nature and nurture play a factor in intelligence which is about 50% genetic and 50% environmental in influence.

With that much environmental influence a purely environmental or cultural model for group differences in IQ is not at all unreasonable.

FRANK: This is a classic example of the foolish reasoning of Morpheus. Morpheus concedes that “most scholars” offer a 50% genetic component to intelligence. Of course, this would be the conclusion if a 100% environmental model would fail to explain and control for all intelligence factors. Why would scholars reject a purely environmental explanation if the evidence supported such a conclusion?

Morpheus decides that even though the majority of scholars have rejected a 100% environmental explanation for intelligence that it is not unreasonable to assume a 100% environmental explanation for IQ.

His reasoning is that since only 50% of intelligence is genetic that it is fair to assume that intelligence is 100% environment because of the 50% environmental influences. Of course one could assume the reverse if basing the position on sheer numbers. The only thing that can be reasonably assumed is that the heredity model is the correct model, the heredity model argues that both genetics and environment play a part in intelligence.

I’m talking about group differences in IQ. Given how large a role environment plays in differences in IQ it is reasonable to assume it is the primary if not only factor in group differences.

You could argue genetics plays a large enough role to assume a primarily genetic component but when it comes to racial discussion the racialist argument is at a disadvantage. The evidence for a major environmental influence is overwhelming. Noone in their right mind argues that racial discrimination has little to no influence on a person’s learning environment which impacts IQ.

On the flip side no causal link between race, genes and intelligence has been found. The few attempts at a biological rationale have been falsified.

Frank says:

MORPHEUS: I’m talking about group differences in IQ. Given how large a role environment plays in differences in IQ it is reasonable to assume it is the primary if not only factor in group differences.

FRANK: The problem is the scholars do not support this assumption, you admit this yourself. There is no reason to draw the non-sequitur conclusion that the development of intelligence is 50% genetic in some instances while 100% environmental in other instances.

You have to make up your mind Morpheus, is the development of intelligence based on the heredity model (50%-50% split) or the environmental model (100%-0%) split? Or even another split?

MORPHEUS: You could argue genetics plays a large enough role to assume a primarily genetic component but when it comes to racial discussion the racialist argument is at a disadvantage. The evidence for a major environmental influence is overwhelming. Noone in their right mind argues that racial discrimination has little to no influence on a person’s learning environment which impacts IQ.

The problem is hereditarians do not argue against environment playing a role in intelligence. The problem for your side is that they acknowledge that both heredity and environment play a part in the development of IQ.

One of the greatest arguments against the racial discrimination argument has been the transracial adoption studies. During the most environmentally sensitive time of development, black IQ’s were raised drastically even though Joseph Graves argued that these black kids expected to fail due to some black persecution complex. However, the regression to the mean took place by age 17. The interesting part is the regression took place with all racial groups which is odd if only ONE group faced unique discrimination.

MORPHEUS: On the flip side no causal link between race, genes and intelligence has been found. The few attempts at a biological rationale have been falsified.

FRANK: There is measured and proven powerful worldwide correlation of IQ along racial lines.

NE ASIANS: 100 to 110
WHITES: 90 to 107
BLACKS: 70 to 85

While there are variations the scores are too perfectly aligned in a pattern to dismiss as random or arbitrary.

FRANK: The problem is hereditarians do not argue against environment playing a role in intelligence. The problem for your side is that they acknowledge that both heredity and environment play a part in the development of IQ.

EgalitarianJay: That’s not a problem for my side. The problem for your side is that the burden of proof is on them to provide a biological rationale for a genetic component. Both sides agree to environment playing a major role.

FRANK: One of the greatest arguments against the racial discrimination argument has been the transracial adoption studies. During the most environmentally sensitive time of development, black IQ’s were raised drastically even though Joseph Graves argued that these black kids expected to fail due to some black persecution complex.

EgalitarianJay: As I explained to you before that is not what he said. That video is available to everyone to read. He said that stereotype threat could have STUNTED Black scores or ELEVATED Asian scores depending on the expectations of the parents and teachers therefore the environments for the different children are not equal due to society’s cultural prejudices. The issue Graves took with Rushton was using the adoption study as good way to test for hereditary and environmental factors. You have to actually watch the video to grasp the arguments.

FRANK: There is measured and proven powerful worldwide correlation of IQ along racial lines….While there are variations the scores are too perfectly aligned in a pattern to dismiss as random or arbitrary.

EgalitarianJay: Correlation is not causation. Racialist hereditarians have not proven their theories. The biological rationales they have posed (such as Rushton’s evolutionary theory) have been falsified.
The status of racialism is that of a fringe theory which is widely regarded as a discredited pseudoscience (Scientific Racism) much like Creationism.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS: Intelligence has a variety of different dimensions. In human beings we might subdivide intelligence into verbal ability, numerical ability, logical reasoning, memory, and so forth. The intelligence of dogs also has several different aspects, among which we recognize three major dimensions. The first is called instinctive intelligence. This really refers to what a dog was bred for. For example, herding dogs were bred to herd animals. Their ability to round up animals, keep them close together, and drive them in a particular direction is inborn and only requires human intervention to keep it under control and to give it a bit of direction.

FRANK: From the link I provided: “Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings — “catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.”

MORPHEUS: Coren seems to agree with Howard Gardner that there are multiple intelligences and that only when controlling for specific types of intelligence can you feasibly rank dogs based on mental ability (they controlled for working and obedience).

FRANK: What he argues is that measuring intelligence in dogs requires differing forms of measurement than is required in humans. Of course this would be the case as no dog could possible score on the Stanford-Binet scales.

However, what must be understood is that dogs can be scored on an intelligence scale, have been scored and have been ranked with much accuracy. This would be difficult if intelligence was merely an abstract concept. Dr. Coren points out:

“The degree of agreement among the judges was amazingly high, suggesting that there were real observable differences that were being reliably detected. For example, when we consider the dogs ranked highest in obedience or working intelligence, we find that 190 of the 199 judges ranked the Border Collie in the top 10!”

MORPHEUS: There is debate within the scientific community about the nature of intelligence and how to measure it. Many scholars such as Howard Gardner are critical of the idea that a person’s intelligence can be characterized by a single numerical unit.

FRANK: Folks like Rushton and Jensen have little trouble drawing intelligence scores based on meticulous research:

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS: As I explained to you before that is not what he said. That video is available to everyone to read. He said that stereotype threat could have STUNTED Black scores or ELEVATED Asian scores depending on the expectations of the parents and teachers therefore the environments for the different children are not equal due to society’s cultural prejudices. The issue Graves took with Rushton was using the adoption study as good way to test for hereditary and environmental factors. You have to actually watch the video to grasp the arguments.

FRANK: But here is the flaw in the argument. In the tests the black child IQ’s were raise by the exact same number as the White child IQ’s. We see that the environment was positive for them.

However, by age 17 all of the groups in question had a drop in IQ that settled closer to their average means namely 100 for the White kids and 85 for the black kids.

The rise and regression of IQ’s were universal amongst all of the groups. So how would Graves explain these inconvenient facts?

Correlation is not causation. Racialist hereditarians have not proven their theories. The biological rationales they have posed (such as Rushton’s evolutionary theory) have been falsified.
The status of racialism is that of a fringe theory which is widely regarded as a discredited pseudoscience (Scientific Racism) much like Creationism.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS: As I explained to you before that is not what he said. That video is available to everyone to read. He said that stereotype threat could have STUNTED Black scores or ELEVATED Asian scores depending on the expectations of the parents and teachers therefore the environments for the different children are not equal due to society’s cultural prejudices. The issue Graves took with Rushton was using the adoption study as good way to test for hereditary and environmental factors. You have to actually watch the video to grasp the arguments.

FRANK: But here is the flaw in the argument. In the tests the black child IQ’s were raise by the exact same number as the White child IQ’s. We see that the environment was positive for them.

However, by age 17 all of the groups in question had a drop in IQ that settled closer to their average means namely 100 for the White kids and 85 for the black kids.

The rise and regression of IQ’s were universal amongst all of the groups. So how would Graves explain these inconvenient facts?

MORPHEUS: Correlation is not causation. Racialist hereditarians have not proven their theories. The biological rationales they have posed (such as Rushton’s evolutionary theory) have been falsified.
The status of racialism is that of a fringe theory which is widely regarded as a discredited pseudoscience (Scientific Racism) much like Creationism.

FRANK: Now you are just appealing to emotionalism. In addition you are appealing to ridicule, popularity and anonymous authority.

The racial hereditarians argue in favour of both heredity and environmental causes for the development of intelligence. You admit that the majority of scholars support this position.

It would appear that the “racialists” have proven their case by your own admission.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS: Don’t lie Frank. I didn’t ignore any of your points I addressed all of that. Using the fog of war argument is an excuse and there was no full scale war going on that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was a part of. The U.S. army was the one who waged war on Native American nations under the philosophy of Manifest Destiny. I also acknowledge that Egalitarian minded Whites made reforms to end degeneracy within their culture that doesn’t change the fact that it happened.

FRANK: As you folks will learn EgalitarianJay is quick tempered but slower to think. He ignores that slavery is such a part of African culture that it is practiced to this day. In contrast the British fought to abolish slavery in Africa in the 1800’s.

MORPHEUS: By the way Frank have you re-considered debating the Wikipedia editors you accused of vandalizing Wiki articles related to Rushton and the Race and Intelligence debate? I’m sure all of the readers here would be interested to know that I have agreed to debate Rushton himself on The Phora under the condition that Frank debate those Wikipedia editors!

FRANK: As you should all note, this has nothing to do with the debate on this blog. Morpheus is merely angry at me so is lashing out like a 7 year old child.

MORPHEUS: That’s very interesting however as I said before humans were not selectively bred by dogs. There is no biological rationale for claiming major cognitive differences exist between so-called races.

FRANK: In other words we are to ignore the psychology authorities on the issue because Morpheus has decided that no cognitive differences exist between the so-called races.

And this position is based on the fact that we were not bred in puppy mills. This is logic for you folks…

FRANK: Now you are just appealing to emotionalism. In addition you are appealing to ridicule, popularity and anonymous authority. The racial hereditarians argue in favour of both heredity and environmental causes for the development of intelligence. You admit that the majority of scholars support this position. It would appear that the “racialists” have proven their case by your own admission.

EgalitarianJay: No Frank. Racialist Hereditarians have claimed that there is a genetic component to IQ score variation between races. They have not proven their case. They have not found a causal link between race, genes and intelligence. I am not appealing to anonymous authority I can name specific scholars who have debunked specific claims. Can you name even one college level Psychology or Biology book printed in the last 10 years where the theory of racial differences in intelligence is mentioned as a current, credible theory in science? If not I rest my case.

FRANK: In other words we are to ignore the psychology authorities on the issue because Morpheus has decided that no cognitive differences exist between the so-called races. And this position is based on the fact that we were not bred in puppy mills. This is logic for you folks…

EgalitarianJay: The point is that dogs and humans do not have the same evolutionary histories so you can not use the same biological rationale to claim that there are racial differences in intelligence. The Admin’s dog analogy is an appeal to ridicule and it fails to give any credibility to the racialist argument.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS:No Frank. Racialist Hereditarians have claimed that there is a genetic component to IQ score variation between races. They have not proven their case. They have not found a causal link between race, genes and intelligence.

FRANK: And this is why the blog “human-stupidity” exists folks. Lets examine the Egalitarian logic folks.

Morpheus concedes that “most scholars” apply a 50% genetic causation to the development of intelligence. He does not dispute this.

Assuming Morpheus is referring to individual intelligence, which he did not originally, we must remember that collectives are merely large numbers of individuals. Hence, collective intelligence is just as inherited as individual intelligence.

Morpheus in a true spirit of doublethink acknowledges that intelligence is 50% genetic but also argues that the Hereditarians have failed to prove that intelligence has a genetic component. Of course, he ignores the evidence provided by people like Rushton and Jensen but even if we omit them we can see that he is arguing two sides of one argument.

Welcome to egalitarian logic…

MORPHEUS: The point is that dogs and humans do not have the same evolutionary histories so you can not use the same biological rationale to claim that there are racial differences in intelligence. The Admin’s dog analogy is an appeal to ridicule and it fails to give any credibility to the racialist argument.

FRANK: This is one of the tricks Egalitarians like to use. I never argued that canines and homo-sapiens are of the same species.

I pointed out to Morpheus that his ad hominem position against human IQ research was flawed as there are indeed IQ tests for dogs as well…

Second, the position Morpheus is a non-sequitur. Canines and Felines do not share an evolutionary history yet we can measure intelligence in those species.

In addition, not sharing an evolutionary history does not negate the fact that legions of species, including humans, have one shared universal trait, their sub-groups have unique traits, features and expressions of life. For example, the fox example Morpheus once brought up is a classic example.

MORPHEUS: I am not appealing to anonymous authority I can name specific scholars who have debunked specific claims.

FRANK: The problem with this is Morpheus does not realize that an appeal to anonymous authority is still an appeal to anonymous authority. Just because HE CAN provide “scholars” to provide counter points did not mean that he did so…

The reason Morpheus has not provided them is I have proven the following about his sources on the Phora:

1) One source promoted a fraudster and a discredited study to support his claims.

2) One source was caught cherry-picking and Morpheus was forced to concede that he could provide an adequate defense to the charge.

MORPHEUS: Can you name even one college level Psychology or Biology book printed in the last 10 years where the theory of racial differences in intelligence is mentioned as a current, credible theory in science? If not I rest my case.

FRANK: This is an appeal to ignorance and a fallacy. You think Morpheus would have learned his lesson though after challenging people to present dog IQ tests.

The fact that he thinks a Biology textbook is a valid source to challenge intelligence testing by population groups should illustrate the desperation of the weak position of this silly little clown named EgalitarianJay.

I think people should notice by now that Frank likes to engage in mindless self-indulgence pretending to speak to a crowd about the weakness of his opponent’s arguments when in reality he is expressing bitterness at have been routinely beaten in debate. These rants are about him and his broken ego not debate.

My point stands on race, genes and intelligence. Racialist Hereditarians have not provided a casual link between these three attributes. Even Rushton and Jensen admit to not having found a casual link, their research is based on correlations. They argue in favor of a weight of evidence as Rushton admits in this video:

Frank is confusing the heritability of intelligence with the argument Rushton and Jensen are trying to make, which is the claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence (i.e. partial genetic causation to racial differences in IQ).

I’ll refer to the argument of another commentator in the Youtube link I provided:

“I think you would be extremely foolish to deny that there is a hereditary component in intelligence. It’s extremely foolish to deny that there is a hereditary component in almost anything. Most things have some “hertiability” as we say. You will probably someday find a few of the genes that underlie that heritability but what that will tell you about Race and IQ I have no idea, I would imagine almost nothing” – Steve Jones

What Frank doesn’t seem to grasp is that the hereditarians have not provided a valid biological rationale for racial differences in intelligence. Rushton tried but failed miserably. His theory was easily falsified by evolutionary biologist Joseph L Graves and other experts on evolutionary biology have issued similar criticisms.

Frank also doesn’t understand my point about dog and human evolutionary histories. Ofcourse they are not the same species. What I am saying is that they are not structured genetically in a similar way. What we call breeds exist in dogs but not in humans. Those breeds came about through selective mating in order to express certain phenotypic traits.

Now regarding my sources:

1. Frank is referring to Richard Nisbett. While I acknowledge that Nisbett cited ONE study that appears to be fraudulent that is irrelevant to the research he presented in this article I linked to in our debate:

What Frank doesn’t tell you is that Nisbett cited multiple studies which directly test the genetic hypothesis for the cause of the Black-White IQ gap which shows a low correlation between high Black IQ and White ancestry. Frank cannot address these studies. He tried to cite Rushton and Jensen’s rebuttal as a counter argument but I addressed the weaknesses in their argument. Instead of addressing Nisbett’s studies he dismisses them as being cherry-picked and tries to discredit Nisbett as a researcher altogether based on this singular fraudulent study. This is a fallacious argument and shows desperation. It’s also a case of special pleading because Frank does not argue that Rushton has no credibility when he fudges data and distorts the research of other scholars.

2. Frank is referring to Nisbett again however there’s really no substance to his charge.

3. Frank is referring to Flynn and Dickens here who provided empirical evidence that the Black-White IQ gap is closing gradually. Even though Flynn and Dickens addressed all of Rushton and Jensen’s points Frank prefers to stick to their line of reasoning rather than acknowledge the valid arguments of Flynn and Dickens.

Frank is blowing hot air with the rest of his response. I brought up the Psychology and Biology books to note that Rushton et al.’s views are fringe.
Frank will not be able to provide us with a biology book that states that there are human races which differ in intelligence and temperament nor a Psychology book that does so. The reason is because no biological rationale has been proven valid for explaining racial differences in IQ.

This crap is not taught in school because it is a fringe and discredited theory.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS: I think people should notice by now that Frank likes to engage in mindless self-indulgence pretending to speak to a crowd about the weakness of his opponent’s arguments when in reality he is expressing bitterness at have been routinely beaten in debate. These rants are about him and his broken ego not debate.

FRANK: Morpheus begins with a well-poisoning attack in order to discredit me…

MORPHEUS: Their position remains at a theoretical stage. The problem is the major premises of their theory have been debunked. You can read a summary of the arguments in this article:

MORPHEUS: What Frank doesn’t tell you is that Nisbett cited multiple studies which directly test the genetic hypothesis for the cause of the Black-White IQ gap which shows a low correlation between high Black IQ and White ancestry. Frank cannot address these studies. He tried to cite Rushton and Jensen’s rebuttal as a counter argument but I addressed the weaknesses in their argument. Instead of addressing Nisbett’s studies he dismisses them as being cherry-picked and tries to discredit Nisbett as a researcher altogether based on this singular fraudulent study. This is a fallacious argument and shows desperation. It’s also a case of special pleading because Frank does not argue that Rushton has no credibility when he fudges data and distorts the research of other scholars.

FRANK: What Morpheus neglects to tell the forum is that Morpheus himself cited Nisbett for failing to adequately defend the cherry picking charges made by Rushton in the following articles:

MORPHEUS: Frank is referring to Flynn and Dickens here who provided empirical evidence that the Black-White IQ gap is closing gradually. Even though Flynn and Dickens addressed all of Rushton and Jensen’s points Frank prefers to stick to their line of reasoning rather than acknowledge the valid arguments of Flynn and Dickens.

FRANK: Did you ignore the following part of your own posted article in which Flynn and Dickens concede the following:

“Our data give a current IQ for blacks age 24 of 83.4 or exactly 1.1 SDs below whites.”

That was from page 2 of their study Morpheus:

Now compare this with the words of Rushton:

“Despite repeated claims to the contrary, there has been no narrowing of the 15- to 18-point average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites (1.1 standard deviations); the differences are as large today as they were when first measured nearly 100 years ago.”

Your source Flynn and Dickens actually agree with Rushton! They agree that the gap remains 1.1 standard deviation! This alone should end the debate but I am not dealing with a rational thinker so I will pose some mathematical problems for you to answer…

1) At age 18 the gap is decreased by 2 points not the 4 to 7 cited by Flynn. Lets do the math Morpheus.

This is neither the 4 to 7 point gain or the 7 to 10 point gain offered by your latest source.

2) You will notice the cut off at age 18? Why do they not give their results for age 24?

Well, we know why Morpheus because if the results for age 24 are given we will learn that the black IQ regresses to 83.4 which increases the gap by 1.6.

Again, Lets do the math Morpheus.

-Original gap is 85 vs 100 = gap of 15 points.
-Revised Flynn gap for 18 year old blacks set at 87 vs 100 = gap of 13 points. The closure is two points.
-Adult black IQ gap is 83.4 vs 100 = gap of 16.6. The gap has increased.

So explain to me how the gap has closed when the gap went from 15 points to 16.6 points?

What Flynn and Dickens have actually done is splice the data to draw blanket conclusions based on child IQ’s. Why do they refuse to draw such conclusions based on the final result rendered in adulthood when the human brain is developed? Because they know their fantasy would be shattered.

By age 18 Morpheus the subjects have an IQ of 87.0. This score illustrates a gap closure of 2 points not 4 to 6, Rushton offers the number 3.44 based on their own ridiculous arguments. At age 12, one can argue such a closure and that is assuming you ignore the results past age 12. Lets’ cut to the chase, Flynn and Dickens merely cherry-picked the scores they wanted to use and used these scores to draw their conclusions.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS: Frank is confusing the heritability of intelligence with the argument Rushton and Jensen are trying to make, which is the claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence (i.e. partial genetic causation to racial differences in IQ).

I’ll refer to the argument of another commentator in the Youtube link I provided:

“I think you would be extremely foolish to deny that there is a hereditary component in intelligence. It’s extremely foolish to deny that there is a hereditary component in almost anything. Most things have some “hertiability” as we say. You will probably someday find a few of the genes that underlie that heritability but what that will tell you about Race and IQ I have no idea, I would imagine almost nothing” – Steve Jones

FRANK: They are on in the same argument hence the term hereditarian. It is the height of illogic to argue that genetics plays a 50% role in the development of human intelligence only to turn around and argue that genetics plays no part in collective intelligence.

If individual intelligence is 50% genetic and groups are merely collection of individuals how does one argue that genetics plays a 0% role in group differences?

It makes so sense especially when you consider that the evidence does not support a culture-only explanation:

The evidence does support a pure environmental model. The heritability of intelligence between individuals does not in itself tell us anything about the heritability between groups. In order to argue for a genetic cause to group differences in IQ you need a biological rationale.

The role of genes in racial differences in IQ could range from 100% to 0%.

Graves made 4 arguments against Rushton’s biological rationale for racial differences in intelligence and temperament:

1. Rushton failed to grasp the history and formulation of density dependent selection theory.
2. Rushton failed to review the critical experiments that falsified the central predictions of
r- and K-selection theory.
3. Rushton incorrectly applied r- and K-theory to explain human life history evolution.
4. Rushton has presented data that are woefully inadequate to test any specific hypothesis
concerning the evolution of human life histories.

With Rushton’s biological rationale falsified and direct evidence supporting a Nil Hypothesis for genetic contribution the overwhelmingly evidence indicates that there are no genetically determined racial differences in intelligence.

Correlations between IQ and real world statistics only reflect the reality of racial stratification within human societies caused by institutional racism.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS:The evidence does support a pure environmental model. The heritability of intelligence between individuals does not in itself tell us anything about the heritability between groups. In order to argue for a genetic cause to group differences in IQ you need a biological rationale.

FRANK: If people with an average IQ of 85 breed with like people of 85 IQ it is likely they will create offspring with IQ’s closest to this mean.

If this is done on a collective basis we have the biological rationale for intelligence on the basis that “most scholars” accept that IQ is 50% heredity.

MORPHEUS: The role of genes in racial differences in IQ could range from 100% to 0%.

FRANK: Which is not mathematically plausible considering that the development of intelligence is at minimal 50% genetic according to “most scholars.”

It also ignores that culture-only theories do not explain away the discrepancies in intelligence.

MORPHEUS: Graves made 4 arguments against Rushton’s biological rationale for racial differences in intelligence and temperament:

FRANK: Graves merely attacked a developmental environmental theory offered by Rushton; maybe the theory is debatable but the history of human development strikes me as quite reasonable.

Of course Graves, even in this case, put his foot in his mouth when he did not know the Dizygotic twin egging rates cited by Rushton when a 1 minute Google search could have confirmed the information. Some Biologist we have there folks.

However, Graves vastly screwed up when he tried to offer a counter on the issue of intelligence and race.

When Graves attacked Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. He tried to argue that alleged black shortcomings were due to “stereotype threat.” Here is the problem with that one:

1) Graves does not explain why the IQ’s of black children increased during their stay with the White parents. If anything, the environment proved to be beneficial to the black subjects. Is this not odd considering that black children were allegedly the victims of prejudice? Numerous adoption and general studies show that black subjects have the strongest IQ’s while their intelligence is still in the developmental stage where environmental stimuli would have the strongest influence.

2) Graves neglects to explain the universal regression toward the means for all racial groups. If blacks were the ones who suffered from such a unique problem the black IQ should have been the only one to regress but this is not the case. We see that the increases in IQ past the mean and the subsequent regression toward the mean is universal amongst all groups.

The arguments put forth by Graves do not adequately explain away the patterns established by Rushton. However, Graves is not an authority on the issue of intelligence measurement therefore it is no shock that his arguments are lacking in substance.

And the only counter you can come up with is a response from that cherry picking fraudster promoting clown Nisbett who ignored the above two points as well.

EgalitarianJay or Morpheus; you are the classic example of why the human stupidity blog exists.

Frank says:

MORPHEUS: Correlations between IQ and real world statistics only reflect the reality of racial stratification within human societies caused by institutional racism.

FRANK: From Rushton:

Genetic factors explain the worldwide pattern in a way that culture-only theory has not. The worldwide pattern contradicts the hypothesis that the low IQ
of American Blacks is due to “White racism.” For instance, Mackintosh (1998) wrote, “it is precisely the experience of being black in a society permeated by
white racism that is responsible for lowering black children’s IQ scores” (p. 152)
.
The IQs of Blacks in Africa is compelling evidence against this theory. The theory that White racism has been responsible for the low IQ of American Blacks always had an ad hoc quality to it because “racism” has had no adverse impact on the intelligence of East Asians and Jews, who average higher scores than do Europeans (Section 1).

Frank I notice how you completely dodged the arguments posed by Nisbett and simply rehash the same strawmen against Graves. Graves didn’t just falsify a theory he showed that Rushton’s methodology for coming to his conclusions were in general flawed. Stupidity is trying to defend the research of fringe and discredited scholars. Arguing with Racialists is like arguing with Creationists.

Their views are appealing emotionally so they cling to them ignoring the invalidating evidence against them.

The racial discrimination against East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews isn’t comparable to Black Africans. A better comparison would be Native Americans who have lower average IQs despite traveling to the Americas from Northeast Asia where their ancestors lived within the same environmental conditions as modern Northeast Asians. Why didn’t the cold winter lead to them having high IQs?

In fact, I so savaged the mans works in our debates that you were left with no choice to concede that he promoted a fraudster, a likely fraudulent study and that he failed to adequately defend charges of cherry-picking.

MORPHEUS: The racial discrimination against East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews isn’t comparable to Black Africans.

FRANK: If you go to any B’nai Brith website they will prop up the idea of a “new anti-semitism.” It is not uncommon for Jewish leaders to stir fears of another holocaust to keep Jewish communities united.

Add this to the events of WWII; I would certainly argue that the Jewish community would share feelings of crippling persecution based on the fear promoted by those leaders within their ranks.

MORPHEUS: A better comparison would be Native Americans who have lower average IQs despite traveling to the Americas from Northeast Asia where their ancestors lived within the same environmental conditions as modern Northeast Asians. Why didn’t the cold winter lead to them having high IQs?

FRANK: I have already explained this to you Morpheus on the Phora. You can find the answer in the following article:

“Lynn also notes some anomalies in the cold winter theory of intelligence. The most striking: the Inuit, exposed to the coldest winter temperatures, have a brain size equal to East Asians, and yet have an average IQ of only 91. To explain this anomaly, Lynn proposes that additional genetic processes are important—such as population size. The larger the network of co-operating and competing population groups (“demes”), the faster any mutations for advantageous alleles can spread. So large landmass groups like East Asians and Europeans average higher IQs than isolated hunter-gatherer groups like the Inuit.”

FRANK: And arguing with you is like arguing with an Atychiphobic megalomaniac who thinks he possesses some superior intellect! And you think you are an intellect because some diploma mill gave you some credits and a couple of obscure scholars give you the time of day.

Frank: You are projecting again Morpheus, ignoring counter-evidence is your thing not mine. I have addressed each and every argument posed by Nisbett, I even included sources that illustrated the dishonest nature of his scholarship….

Egalitarianjay: What you did is dodged the actual arguments of Nisbett and copied and pasted a pathetic attempt at a counter by Rushton and Jensen which I easily picked apart.

Frank: I would certainly argue that the Jewish community would share feelings of crippling persecution based on the fear promoted by those leaders within their ranks.

Egalitarianjay: No doubt Jews and East Asians have been persecuted however their modern communities did not experience the debilitating effects of institutional racism on a level equivalent to that experienced by African-Americans and Native Americans.

Frank: I have already explained this to you Morpheus on the Phora. You can find the answer in the following article…

Egalitarianjay: What are we to make then of the IQs of Native Americans whose ancestors at one time spanned two continents? The Inuit are just one tribe. The inconsistencies of the theory aren’t it’s only problem. The fact that it is based on an evolutionary model that has been discredited means that racial hereditarians have no biological rationale for their claim of genetically determined racial differences in intelligence.

Frank: And arguing with you is like arguing with an Atychiphobic megalomaniac who thinks he possesses some superior intellect! And you think you are an intellect because some diploma mill gave you some credits and a couple of obscure scholars give you the time of day.

Egalitarianjay: Look who’s trying to play psychologist now! That’s what this is really all about. A personal vendetta against me. To me Frank you are just another racist. You spend so much energy trying to debate me because you want me to feel like I am not as smart as you think I am perceived to be or perceive myself to be.

I don’t have a fear of failure Frank but you do. I detect projection. For instance you accused me of trying to deface Wikipedia as an attempt at character assassination. If you were truly interested in challenging yourself in civil debate you would go to Wikipedia and debate the editors there. But you won’t because it is out of your comfort zone (racialist blogs and racist forums) and you know that the level of debate there is too high brow for you.

An Atychiphobic megalomaniac describes you perfectly. Your Megalomania is apparent in your need to try to humble me even though I don’t boast about my intellectual prowess and your irrational fear of failure is revealed by your unwillingness to debate the Wikipedia scholars.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS: What you did is dodged the actual arguments of Nisbett and copied and pasted a pathetic attempt at a counter by Rushton and Jensen which I easily picked apart.

FRANK: And the real laughable is this is what you do! I have offered very detailed criticisms of Nisbett from his promotion of a fraudster to his drawing overall conclusions on intelligence using child IQ without a follow up component. I have pointed out that even these studies are based on cherry-picking while I had to explain to you why his criticisms of the MTRA studies did not make sense.

To further the argument, I presented a 2010 article from Rushton and Jensen offering a POINT BY POINT refutation of Nisbetts positions only for you to dismiss the response as “pathetic” without any qualifiers contrary to your empty bravado.

The real funny part is you have yet to even adequately respond to the beating Jensen laid on Gould in his response. You just expressed disappointment in Gould for not having the mandhood to respond and moved on.

The real ironic part is you are guilty of the those acts you attribute to me.

MORPHEUS: What are we to make then of the IQs of Native Americans whose ancestors at one time spanned two continents? The Inuit are just one tribe. The inconsistencies of the theory aren’t it’s only problem. The fact that it is based on an evolutionary model that has been discredited means that racial hereditarians have no biological rationale for their claim of genetically determined racial differences in intelligence.

FRANK: I do not even have the heart to tell him that Native Indians outperform blacks on IQ tests but I will say that you are simply using the same outdated arguments that are little more than non-sequiturs on a massive scale.

There are anomalies in pretty well each of the IQ theories. For example, the average IQ for one Balkan nation is 90; while Germany averages an IQ of 107 yet one would argue that the average IQ for White peoples is not 99 – 100 because of these anomalies.

Nobody denies that there are exceptions to the rule. There are variations yet we see a distinct pattern if we draw our conclusions from averages instead of the variations. Draw conclusions on the rule rather than the exceptions.

The rule says:

NE ASIANS: 100-110
WHITES: 90-107
BLACKS: 70-85

It would be silly to deny heredity based on mere variations that can be found in many theories of such a nature.

MORPHEUS: Look who’s trying to play psychologist now! That’s what this is really all about. A personal vendetta against me. To me Frank you are just another racist. You spend so much energy trying to debate me because you want me to feel like I am not as smart as you think I am perceived to be or perceive myself to be.

FRANK: As we can see Morpheus tries to take the high ground but fails miserably to do so. The fact is he is being intellectually destroyed, his sources are being successfully discredited and his failure to provide any sort of a rational defense of his positions is being exposed. So he resorts to the tactic of a truly desperate debater, he calls me a racist.

Calling me a racist is a classless way of saying that he does not have an argument. One must ask what he plans to call me next…a poopie-head?

1. General intelligence can be quantified by a single metric known as g.
2. Standardized tests can be utilized to measure g.
3. g is mostly genetically determined.
4. Races differ consistently in their performance on intelligence tests.
5. This difference must in part be due to the genetic differences between races.
6. Races of human being can be unambiguously defined by biological means.

If the premises of the argument are falsified then the theory has been discredited.

Jensen’s elaborate thesis on g can be shown to be based on several fallacious premises. IQ tests are merely clever numerical surrogates for social class. The numerous correlations evoked in support of g arise from this. His ‘genetic’ arguments are based on a highly simplistic, and outmoded, model of genes. And his model of “race” is based on evolutionary misconceptions.

Readers can decide for themselves what to believe. I will believe the mainstream scholars who have cited empirical evidence discrediting racialist theories over fringe scholars who have presented nothing but pseudoscientific research to support their claims.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS: 1. General intelligence can be quantified by a single metric known as g.

FRANK: “A working definition of intelligence, then, is that it is the g factor of an indefinitely large and varied battery of mental tests….We are forced to infer that g is of considerable importance in ‘real life’ by the fact that g constitutes the largest component of total variance in all standard tests of intelligence or IQ, and the very same g is by far the largest component of variance in scholastic achievement (Jensen, 1979, pp. 249-50).”

MORPHEUS: 2. Standardized tests can be utilized to measure g.

FRANK: “Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

While there are different types of intelligence tests,
they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).”

MORPHEUS: 3. g is mostly genetically determined.

FRANK: The arguments range from a 50%-%50% split to an 80%-20% split. At no time is environmental stimuli dismissed.

FRANK: This is false, on average racial groups tend to perform consistently on different scales but there are variations and anomalies. It is not universally true for every person of every race. There are exceptions to the rule.

MORPHEUS: 5. This difference must in part be due to the genetic differences between races.

MORPHEUS: 6. Races of human being can be unambiguously defined by biological means.

FRANK: Considering that people can be classified as Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid by genetic analysis and forensic anthropology gives these classifications biological reality whether you call them a race or a population group.

Reply to Frank on #1: In this book Jensen (1998, 1999) pursues his well-known arguments about g, a ‘general, cognitive factor’. But it isn’t difficult to show that what is cognitive is not general, and what is general is not cognitive. Scores on standardised psychometric tests intercorrelate partly because they have been subjected to considerable construction engineering on the basis of common criteria. Jensen himself has noted how ‘every item is carefully edited and selected on the basis of technical procedures known as “item analysis”, based on tryouts of the items on large samples and the test’s target population’ (1980:145). Even so, because item designs tend to be intuitive, and the criteria for item selection statistical and pragmatic, rather than theoretical, there is sill much puzzlement about what the common factor actually is. Other cognitive theory might help us in this regard……the ‘common factor’ which emerges in test performances stems from a combination of (a) the (hidden) cultural content of tests; (b) cognitive self-efficacy beliefs; and (c) the self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety associated with such beliefs. In other words, g is just an mystificational numerical surrogate for social class membership. This is what is being distilled when g is statistically ‘extracted’ from performances. Perhaps the best evidence for this is the ‘Flynn effect,’ (Fkynn 1999) which simply corresponds with the swelling of the middle classes and greater exposure to middle-class cultural tools. It is also supported by the fact that the Flynn effect is more prominent with non-verbal than with verbal test items – i.e. with the (covertly) more enculturated forms.

Reply to Frank on #2: “Although the correlation between IQ scores and school performance is one deliberately built into tests, it produces large ‘knock-on’ effects, such as a built-in correlation with occupational status. Further correlations are built in by the fact that g also reflects cognitive self-efficacy beliefs and self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety. This will explain the (weak) correlation between IQ and rate of learning (or job training), and also why such associations crease with task complexity.”

Reply to Frank on #3: Hereditarians tend to favor a predominately genetic component for both individual and group differences.

The problem is that social definitions and biological definitions of race differ. The scientific study of race derives from Physical Anthropology and in that discipline it has a formal meaning:

Race’ is applied in formal taxonomy to variation below the species level. In traditional approaches, substantively morphologically distinct populations or collections of populations occupying a section of a species range are called subspecies and given a three-part Latin name10. In current systematic practice, the designation ‘subspecies’ is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence…We argue that the correct use of the term ‘race’ is the most current taxonomic one, because it has been formalized. ‘Race’ gains its force from its natural science root. The term denotes ‘natural’ distinctions and connotes differences not susceptible to change.

When race is equated with sub-species we find that the genetic diversity of human populations with different phenotypes do not meet the phlyogenetic criteria for classification as sub-species. Their DNA does not structure into evolutionarily distinct lineages which indicate a fission of human populations into emerging species:

“Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define ‘races’ emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable ‘racial’ divergence.”

Disciplines like population genetics and forensic anthropology can scientifically identify biological variation that does exist. But when it comes to scientific classification the identification of human races is dependent on an understanding of human evolution. It isn’t denied that genetic or phenotypic variation or similarity exists. But biological difference does not equal race.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS: When race is equated with sub-species we find that the genetic diversity of human populations with different phenotypes do not meet the phlyogenetic criteria for classification as sub-species. Their DNA does not structure into evolutionarily distinct lineages which indicate a fission of human populations into emerging species

FRANK: The underlying and fatal flaw with this argument is that races do not have to be phylogenetically distinct in order to have biological meaning. Two scientists from your side of the camp concede:

“Biologically meaningful races do not have to be phylogenetically distinct is obvious when we consider the case of ecotypes. The concept of ecotype was introduced by Turesson (1922) to describe genetically based specific responses of plants to certain environmental conditions, although the idea has been applied to the animal literature as well. The King and Stansfield’s dictionary defines an ecotype as a ‘‘Race (within a species) genetically adapted to a certain environment.’’ It is important to understand three things about ecotypes: (1) there must be a connection between genetic differentiation and ecological adaptation, (2) ecotypes are not (necessarily) phylogenetic units; rather, they are functional-ecological entities, and (3) ecotypes can be differentiated on the basis of many or a very few genetic differences.”

MORPHEUS: “Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define ‘races’ emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable ‘racial’ divergence.

FRANK: The underlying and fatal flaw with this position is that we can demonstrate racial differences along the lines of Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.

This can be done scientifically and correlates positively with racial self identification…

“The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups – African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect.”

This classification is also possible through forensic anthropology with the majority of forensic anthropologists supporting the concept of biological race…

“As pointed out in a recent 2000 edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races.”

MORPHEUS: Other cognitive theory might help us in this regard……the ‘common factor’ which emerges in test performances stems from a combination of (a) the (hidden) cultural content of tests; (b) cognitive self-efficacy beliefs; and (c) the self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety associated with such beliefs. In other words, g is just an mystificational numerical surrogate for social class membership

FRANK: Now this argument makes very little sense:

1) If a cultural bias exists why do impoverished Asian kids perform well on the tests?

2) If self-esteem issues effect the tests why are black youth able to score adequately well?

3) If social class is truly the basis of g why is their a universal measured increase in intelligence during the childhood of subjects and a universal regression toward the mean toward brain development? There is no class discrimination in this regard.

MORPHEUS: “Although the correlation between IQ scores and school performance is one deliberately built into tests, it produces large ‘knock-on’ effects, such as a built-in correlation with occupational status. Further correlations are built in by the fact that g also reflects cognitive self-efficacy beliefs and self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety. This will explain the (weak) correlation between IQ and rate of learning (or job training), and also why such associations crease with task complexity.”

FRANK: I fail to see the argument. The ‘g factor’ or intelligence is rather accepted as a reality and supported by mainstream scholarship.

2) Graves is in no way and authority on intelligence testing hence cannot offer a credible learned refutation on the intelligence tests themselves. Graves has offered very little reason to dismiss the intelligence tests and the position that they are entirely culture only:

A) The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

B) Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

C) Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

D) IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages–Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

E) Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or “Head Start” programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.

And I am omitting the information about brain size and life history theory to illustrate how the above alone creates a fatal blow to culture only theory.

3) With Sternberg and Wicherts; Wicherts is the only one of the two worthy of a response. While Wicherts offered the better responses but he is selective in what he chooses to quote. For example, when discussing brain size he omits Rushtons citation of the Halloway autopsy results. His math also leaves something to be desired…

I would suggest that the forum read the actual study offered to by Rushton and to compare the two sides:

“The human brain may contain up to 100 billion (1011) nerve cells classifiable into 10,000 types resulting in 100,000 billion synapses (Kandel, 1991). The number of neurons available to process information may mediate the correlation between brain size and GMA. Haug (1987, p. 135) showed a correlation of r = 0.48 (N = 81, p < 0.001) between number of corticalneurons (based on a partial count of representative areas of the brain) and brain size. The regression equation was number of cortical neurons (in billions) = 5.583 + 0.006 (cm3 brain volume). The difference between the low end of normal (1,000 cm3) and the high end (1,700 cm3) worked out to be 4.283 billion neurons.

Subsequently, Pakkenberg and Gundersen (1997) found a correlation of r = 0.56 between brain size and number of neurons."

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

MORPHEUS: When race is equated with sub-species we find that the genetic diversity of human populations with different phenotypes do not meet the phlyogenetic criteria for classification as sub-species. Their DNA does not structure into evolutionarily distinct lineages which indicate a fission of human populations into emerging species

FRANK: The underlying and fatal flaw with this argument is that races do not have to be phylogenetically distinct in order to have biological meaning. Two scientists from your side of the camp concede:

“Biologically meaningful races do not have to be phylogenetically distinct is obvious when we consider the case of ecotypes. The concept of ecotype was introduced by Turesson (1922) to describe genetically based specific responses of plants to certain environmental conditions, although the idea has been applied to the animal literature as well. The King and Stansfield’s dictionary defines an ecotype as a ‘‘Race (within a species) genetically adapted to a certain environment.’’ It is important to understand three things about ecotypes: (1) there must be a connection between genetic differentiation and ecological adaptation, (2) ecotypes are not (necessarily) phylogenetic units; rather, they are functional-ecological entities, and (3) ecotypes can be differentiated on the basis of many or a very few genetic differences.”

MORPHEUS: “Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define ‘races’ emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable ‘racial’ divergence.

FRANK: The underlying and fatal flaw with this position is that we can demonstrate racial differences along the lines of Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.
This can be done scientifically and correlates positively with racial self identification…

“The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups – African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect.”

This classification is also possible through forensic anthropology with the majority of forensic anthropologists supporting the concept of biological race…

“As pointed out in a recent 2000 edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races.”

MORPHEUS: Other cognitive theory might help us in this regard……the ‘common factor’ which emerges in test performances stems from a combination of (a) the (hidden) cultural content of tests; (b) cognitive self-efficacy beliefs; and (c) the self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety associated with such beliefs. In other words, g is just an mystificational numerical surrogate for social class membership

FRANK: Now this argument makes very little sense:

1) If a cultural bias exists why do impoverished Asian kids perform well on the tests?

2) If self-esteem issues effect the tests why are black youth able to score adequately well?

3) If social class is truly the basis of g why is their a universal measured increase in intelligence during the childhood of subjects and a universal regression toward the mean toward brain development? There is no class discrimination in this regard.

MORPHEUS: “Although the correlation between IQ scores and school performance is one deliberately built into tests, it produces large ‘knock-on’ effects, such as a built-in correlation with occupational status. Further correlations are built in by the fact that g also reflects cognitive self-efficacy beliefs and self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety. This will explain the (weak) correlation between IQ and rate of learning (or job training), and also why such associations crease with task complexity.”

FRANK: I fail to see the argument. The ‘g factor’ or intelligence is rather accepted as a reality and supported by mainstream scholarship.

2) Graves is in no way and authority on intelligence testing hence cannot offer a credible learned refutation on the intelligence tests themselves. Graves has offered very little reason to dismiss the intelligence tests and the position that they are entirely culture only:

A) The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

B) Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

C) Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

D) IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages–Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

E) Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or “Head Start” programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.

And I am omitting the information about brain size and life history theory to illustrate how the above alone creates a fatal blow to culture only theory.

3) With Sternberg and Wicherts; Wicherts is the only one of the two worthy of a response. While Wicherts offered the better responses but he is selective in what he chooses to quote. For example, when discussing brain size he omits Rushtons citation of the Halloway autopsy results. His math also leaves something to be desired…

I would suggest that the forum read the actual study offered to by Rushton and to compare the two sides:

“The human brain may contain up to 100 billion (1011) nerve cells classifiable into 10,000 types resulting in 100,000 billion synapses (Kandel, 1991). The number of neurons available to process information may mediate the correlation between brain size and GMA. Haug (1987, p. 135) showed a correlation of r = 0.48 (N = 81, p < 0.001) between number of corticalneurons (based on a partial count of representative areas of the brain) and brain size. The regression equation was number of cortical neurons (in billions) = 5.583 + 0.006 (cm3 brain volume). The difference between the low end of normal (1,000 cm3) and the high end (1,700 cm3) worked out to be 4.283 billion neurons. Subsequently, Pakkenberg and Gundersen (1997) found a correlation of r = 0.56 between brain size and number of neurons."

Chuck: Nisbett cites two types of studies: studies based on skin color + negro appearance — which are in line with the hereditarian hypothesis — and studies based on blood groups — which are equivocal. It’s noticeable that Nisbett and friends are not helping to call for newer studies that utilize modern genotyping methods. They just keep spouting off about the case is close, so no proper testing needs to be done.

2. Convergence of Black and White IQ

Chuck: In 1969, Jensen made the case that the then 1SD race gap was 50-75% genetic in origin — he based this partially on the evidence that the within population heritability of IQ was 0.75. After 40 years of massive intervention, the current gap, using the IQ tests that Flynn and Dickens deem representable, is .9SD — still above Jensen’s predicted minimal.

Moreover, It has so turned out the the heritability of IQ increases linearly with age. As such, what matter in regards to the issue of genes and the race gap is the adult gap — that is, the gap at which time it would be predicted that genes play the dominant part . Based on the WAIS IV norms, which came out in 2008, this has increased.

The failure of massive intervention to close the adult race gap even partially argues strongly against the environmental hypothesis.

3. Alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs

Chuck: As predicted by the hereditarian hypothesis, intensive intervention programs such as Perry, Abecedarian, and the Chicago Early Childhood program had little to no lasting impact on IQ relative to the control groups.

4. Adoption Studies

When it comes to African Americans there were two adoption studies: Scar and Weinberg (1976/1992) and Moore (1986). Of these, only Scar and Weinberg’s was longitudinal and noted the offspring’s parent’s IQ. As Scar et al note, the Minnesota study supported a partial genetic hypothesis. The Moore study is inconclusive given that it was not longitudinal.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 00

@EgalitarianJay: thanks for contributing to the discussion. Especially for posting links and interesting video series where the really qualified and famous people argue their points in more qualified ways then we can do.

You are already aware that I disagree with most of your positions, but qualified dissent makes the discussion lively.

Unfortunately, I think people like Graves et al. are not really qualified and contribute nothing but distraction. But, as they are taken seriously even by a majority, it is good you bring them up.

Nisbett and Flynn were the only people I took seriously, and I did not have qualifications to rebut.

Thankfully Frank posted an article by Rushton where their arguments were rebutted. I was shocked to find out that Nisbett’s arguments hinged on cherry picking among the literature and outright academic dishonesty.

That was my clear impression after a quick reading of Rushton’s article.

Of course, to truly judge these topics one would have to spend weeks reading Rushton’s citations and sources and Nisbett’s original articles and citations.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 00

@Frank: I made you an author on Human-Stupidity. Feel free to write a contributing article.

I am interested in one Human-Stupidity aspect:

What are the types of arguments, the logic how people avoid the facts and the truth? Where do they get evasive? Which arguments are simply absurd (race does not exist). But how do they uphold the absurd argument with a veneer of respectability. And why are they still believed.

The video discussions would be interesting in that respect. People take up one tangential side topic like r-K definition, which, true or not, does not detract from empirical data and the fact that Rushton’s logic could support itself without leaning on r-K definitions. Or rather, some r-K definitions depend also on some pre-suppositions like collapsing populations/overpopulation or expanding populations with available resources.

admin says:

@Frank: a few topics I am unclear about (that would require explanations and rebuttals)

Comparison of African nations that allegedly are richer, and less criminal then some Asian or white countries.

Comments about black upper middle class in the US and Africa, and about black immigrant students at US elite Universities. It seems that these students are the intellectual elite of their countries and ride on racial quotas intended for the disenfranchised local US blacks.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Hello:

Unfortunately, I will not be able to contribute to the blog due to recent events in my life; I simply cannot spare the time. I apologize for any inconvenience. However, I will respond to the following questions:

ADMIN: Comparison of African nations that allegedly are richer, and less criminal then some Asian or white countries.

FRANK: In all fairness I am unaware of any Sub-Saharan African nation that is “richer” or “less criminal” than European and NE Asian nations.

“Nationmaster” is regularly used as a source in a feeble attempt illustrate such a point even though Nationmaster itself argues that one cannot compare nations in this regard using NM. NM argues that statistics are not always compiled honestly, reasonably and what constitutes certain crimes in one nation may not be deemed so in others.

Also one must keep in mind that the presence of minorities in western societies can drastically increased a nations crime rate.

If America did not have a black population, the murder rates would be cut in half. According to government statistics African-Americans make up 50% of the U.S. murder and violent crime rates.

In Russia crime would be cut by 40% if non-Russian minorities from “developing” nations were not present.

If I may, I would suggest that you read the articles on the following webpage:

You will find many studies / articles that deal with race, crime and correlating intelligence.

ADMIN: Comments about black upper middle class in the US and Africa, and about black immigrant students at US elite Universities. It seems that these students are the intellectual elite of their countries and ride on racial quotas intended for the disenfranchised local US blacks.

FRANK: People have to realize that anomalies do exist. These highly intellect people make up a tiny percentage of their overall population. It is no surprise that the best and brightest of the third world would seek to escape those conditions.

There are black people who are highly intelligent. There are white people who are incredibly stupid. There are Asian people who are incredibly stupid. Does this mean that IQ averages are negated because of the anomalies? The answer is “no”…

Lets say we can find one Sub-Saharan African nation that is technically “richer” than some poorer European nation, ask yourself the following question.

Is this the rule or the exception? What does the overall pattern illustrate? This is how we truly measure…

ADMIN: What are the types of arguments, the logic how people avoid the facts and the truth? Where do they get evasive? Which arguments are simply absurd (race does not exist). But how do they uphold the absurd argument with a veneer of respectability. And why are they still believed.

FRANK: Race-deniers have merely changed the definition of race to mesh with their arguments. They use a lot of long-winded pseudo-scientific jargon in an attempt to justify their rape of the term.

However, in the end, the science is clear on the issue that the three traditional racial groups are distinctive enough to classify within these racial lines both genetically and anthropologically.

Unfortunately, I think people like Graves et al. are not really qualified and contribute nothing but distraction. But, as they are taken seriously even by a majority, it is good you bring them up.

EgalitarianJay:

As a Phd in Evolutionary Biology Graves is most certainly qualified to speak on the subject of human evolution and genetics. Graves makes the salient point in his book that racial hereditarians have a very amateurish understanding of Evolutionary Genetics.
If you watch the full video I uploaded you’ll notice that Rushton doesn’t challenge Graves on any one point that he brought up he asks him questions to get his opinion but gets very frustrated when Graves rejects and counters his arguments. These two scholars are not on the same level when it comes to understanding experimental studies of life history evolution. Graves is an expert and Rushton is not.

Graves is not lecturing anyone on psychometrics and how to properly formulate an IQ test. He actually takes the IQ tests at face value and argues over the validity of experiments claimed to test a genetic hypothesis for racial differences in intelligence as well as the biological rationale used to explain those differences.

FRANK: Race-deniers have merely changed the definition of race to mesh with their arguments. They use a lot of long-winded pseudo-scientific jargon in an attempt to justify their rape of the term. However, in the end, the science is clear on the issue that the three traditional racial groups are distinctive enough to classify within these racial lines both genetically and anthropologically. This is the area one should stick to in debating such people.

EgalitarianJay: Admin, I have one recommendation to make on the subject of the existence of human races. Consider the credibility of the source. These are not fringe scholars or political commentators making these arguments against the concept race they are mainstream experts on human evolution and genetics.
When I first heard the claim that there were no races I thought the idea was absurd despite being a hardline Egalitarian. But as I became more educated on what the argument actually was I began to understand the position.

Despite Frank’s relentless argumentation on the issue this is the position of mainstream science and it is a position based on scientific correctness. The premises of traditional race models have been tested and falsified. They do not accurately describe human biological variation. One of the key problems with this debate is an issue of semantics. Race have been defined differently over the years.

The best way to address this issue with racialists is to challenge them to fulfill the following requests:

1. Provide a scientific definition of race
2. Provide scientific criteria for racial classification
3. Name the various races

Failure to do this exposes the fact that they have no objective criteria for classifying humans into racial groups.

Frank always goes in the same direction on this issue. Listing research in scientific disciplines like forensic anthropology, population genetics and medical science which are capable of analyzing human genetic variation and utilizing it in a scientifically meaningful way to justify the existence of races. However race doesn’t simply mean difference and I have discussed this issue with Frank ad nauseum. It’s really become a waste of time. He has his opinion and I have mine. My position is with the mainstream scientific experts on the issue. His is with the fringe scholars and opinion of scholars who don’t have a solid grasp of the evolutionary mechanisms that determine human genetic variation.

Btw Frank I will not be on The Phora for awhile because my computer crashed. I have to get it repaired. In the meantime I will be posting from the library. Because The Phora is listed as a hate site it’s blocked.

The best way to address this issue with racialists is to challenge them to fulfill the following requests:

1. Provide a scientific definition of race
2. Provide scientific criteria for racial classification
3. Name the various races

…………………

Chuck’s comment:

Hopefully, it need not be said that the taxonomic status of various human ancestral populations (that is, whether they qualify as subspecies or not) is irrelevant to the issue of between population genetic differences. No one doubts, for example, that the population called African-Americans differs genetically on average from that called European Americans. Whether those two populations are deemed to be or not to be offshoots of separate human subspecies neither increases not decreases the amount of genetic variation that exists.

That said, “EgalitarianJay:” requests the following:

1. Provide a scientific definition of race

Chuck: “The subspecies category has been defined as “a geographically defined aggregate of local populations which differ taxonomically from other subdivisions of the species.” A valuable recent modification urged that the evidence for BCS subspecies designation should come from the concordant distribution of multiple, independent, genetically based traits. In an attempt to provide formal criteria for subspecies classifications we offer the following guidelines: Members of a subspecies share a unique geographical range or habitat, a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Because they are below the species level, different subspecies are reproductively compatible, They will normally be allotropic and they will exhibit recognizable phylogentic partitioning, because of time dependent accumulations of genetic difference in absence of gene flow. Most subspecies will be monophyletic, however they will also derive from ancestral subspecies hybridization. ….Occasional introgression or inbreeding should not be viewed as inconsistent with subspecies status, they simply change the phylogenetic description. (O’Brien and Mayr, 1991. Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies)

2. Provide scientific criteria for racial classification

Chuck:
1] share a (historic) unique geographical range or habitat
2] share a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters
3] share a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species.

“MORPHEUS: Jensen’s elaborate thesis on g can be shown to be based on several fallacious premises. IQ tests are merely clever numerical surrogates for social class.”

g or general intelligence refers to the positive manifold of cognitive ability test scores. That there is such a manifold is an indisputable fact; that this manifold is biologically rooted is also an indisputable fact. (Refer to Chabris, 2007. “Cognitive and neurobiological mechanisms of the Law of General Intelligence”). What is debated is the exact relations between the brain, genes, behaviors and this manifold.)

As for the clam that general cognitive ability (varyingly g or GCA or GMA) is “merely clever numerical surrogates for social class” you can refer yourselves to the literature on this:

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

CHUCK: Hopefully, it need not be said that the taxonomic status of various human ancestral populations (that is, whether they qualify as subspecies or not) is irrelevant to the issue of between population genetic differences. No one doubts, for example, that the population called African-Americans differs genetically on average from that called European Americans. Whether those two populations are deemed to be or not to be offshoots of separate human subspecies neither increases not decreases the amount of genetic variation that exists.

FRANK: This is essentially the argument I have provided though I lack your eloquence. We can clearly draw scientific collective distinctions between the traditional racial groups. We are told that these definitions are merely socially constructed and are too arbitrary for classification yet we can do just that with scientific method. I see no reason to provide “scientific criteria” for racial classification as greater scientists have already done so.

Even the “name the races” challenge is non-sense as I could not tell you the breed of every canine but could tell you the difference between a French Poodle and an English Bulldog.

EGALITARIAN JAY: As a Phd in Evolutionary Biology Graves is most certainly qualified to speak on the subject of human evolution and genetics.

FRANK: He is not qualified though to speak on the issue of Ecology, medicinal research or psychology.

Even in cases where psychometric research indicates that varying levels of intelligence exists within various population groups, Graves is not qualified to dismiss that research because he does not support the group classification system.

Admin I see that you have not made any more blog entries on this subject. My debate with Frank on The Phora appears to be over. Recently on another board I read replies to a PM from a poster who wanted to enter the discussion but didn’t because the debate had already ended. I will share his replies here:

Frank says:

There is nothing controversial about the term or concept of “race.” It is regularly used in medical science and very prestigious medical institutions have little issue with making a diagnosis and even offering treatments along these traditional racial lines. Interestingly enough even some prominent “race-deniers” have little issue with the validity of such actions.

Inshan Ali says:

Frank’s claim is dubious. “Race” in fact is not “regularly used” in medical treatment in any significant way. Doctors for example may or may not ask about race on their patient intake forms. WHat is much more important to them is the patient’s medical history and that of his/her families, not their “race.” Frank’s notion of this vast web of race-based medicine is a fantasy, that simply does not exist.

Frank says:

We can look at a car and tell it is a car but we are told that “car” is a social construct. Even though we can successfully identify the car by the shape/nature of the frame, style of tires, size of the trunk, position of the mirrors and design of the windows we are told that we are mistaken in our identification.

Inshan Ali:

Frank’s car example is also dubious. His main talking point here is to point out the outward features of the car that can be seen – and then claiming that people are “denying” the obvious. This is a typical strawman tactic of the racialists. In fact though, those who question race specifically question it as a BIOLOGICAL construct in defining species and sub-species. No one “denies” that African Massai are taller and darker on the average than European Greeks for example. The “denier” strawman is entirely fallacious. But let’s give Frank the benefit of the doubt for a moment. Tell us Frank, since you claim that the proof is so self-evident, can you distinguish a random Berber from a Ghanian just by looking at them? A Nubian from an Egyptian? A Mexican from a Turk? Frank would fail miserably is he took such a test. Berber for example is not a racial category but a language category (Frigi 2010, et al), and Berbers come in all skin colors and facial features. Ancient Nubians and and ancient Egyptians were ethnically the closest people (Yurco 1989, Godde 2009, Zakrewski 2007). On a more popular level, would famous Mexican soccer striker Hugo Sanchez be “easily” identified as “Hispanic race” if he donned the uniform of a Turkish soccer team? These examples are only for starters, and expose the simplistic “race eyeballing” Frank and people like John Derbyshire think they are experts at. They also expose the bogus strawman invoked – the notion that those who question race are “denying” routine variation in how people look. It is a strawman, and it is absolute nonsense.

Actually Frank is off-base here. Mayo does not “quite frequently” use “race” in risk measuring, prognosis and treatment. The web link merely shows Mayo references SELF-REPORTED race as ONE risk factor. There is little in the weblink showing any significant use of “race” in prognosis and treatment. And the Mayo example actually undermines frank’s claim of the importance of race. Some doctors collect detailed background info on their patients where warranted, and provided that said info is RELEVANT. It is highly unlikely any competent doctor will pay much attention to “race” if a black guy shows up for some cold medicine. Much more relevant to any physician are symptoms at hand, allergies to medication, family medical history etc etc, not whether some guy is black or Asian.

Frank builds another strawman by trying to insinuate that those who question race are “denying” that doctors do not collect or use such information. The strawman is dubious. People like Graves, or Keita, or Liberman do not “deny” that race is not in use, nor do they deny that self-reported race can be of use as part of the usual background query. What they object to is (a) basing medical decisions and treatment on the basis of race as a central factor, and (b) people like Rushton who use routine family history info as “proof” of race, and (c) the notion that differences between groups from particular regions are due to “race.” The book Nutrition: a lifespan approach (Simon Langley-Evans), shows typical variation among groups. Heart disease for example is more common among Eastern Europeans than among sothern Europeans. Within the UK, the lowest heart diseases are in the southern and eastern parts of England, compared to other parts. In Scotland, heart disease among men is 60% above that of men from southern England. Regional differences always exist among people. But no serious scholar, student or health professional is running around saying that Scots are a different “race” than English, or that Russians or Bulgarians are a different “race” than Greeks. Yet this is the type of skewed logic Rushton and Frank keep pushing.

Frank seizes on drugs like Bidil to “prove” the usefuness of the race concept. But as Grave 2006 shows, Bidil is not a racial drug. Physicians do not immediately haul it out because a black guy walks in complaining of chest pain. Graves shows that the condition Bidil addresses is much more related to factors such as stress than alleged biological race. For hsitorical reasons, including diet, higher stress levels may be found among those self0reporting as African American. In other words, the key trigger is environmental not “racial.” Graves notes that on some counts associated with the condition Bidil is used under, whites are likely to receive more help from the drug than blacks.

Rushton and his ilk have seized upon what may be quite a peripheral factor in overall medical treatment and blown it up to some major, item of “proof” that race exists. But collecting self-reported ethnic info is hardly “proof” that race exists or is valid as a BIOLOGICAL construct, nor is variation among groups. The book Nutrition: a lifespan approach (Simon Langley-Evans 2009), for example shows shows how variation can occur among groups, even those living close by. Coronary heart disease is much more common among Eastern Europeans than among southern Europeans. In Scotland, heart disease among men is 60% above that of men from southern England. In France, coronary heart disease (CHD) remains low depsite similar levels of fat consumption, smoking, cholesterol etc etc. to the higher at risk UK. A key intervening factor in suppressing CHDs for the French however is high consumption of ethanol (wine), not a different “racial” makeup of the French. Differences always exist among people. But no serious scholar, student or health professional is running around saying that Scots are a different “race” than English, or that Russians or Bulgarians are a different “race” than Greeks. Yet this is the type of skewed logic Rushton and his allies keep pushing as “the truth” and “reality.”

Frank says:

Despite the vast body of evidence now accumulating for important genetic and behavioral differences among the three great macro-races, there is much reluctance to accept that the differences in crime are deeply rooted. Perhaps one must sympathize with fears aroused by race research. But all theories of human nature can be used to generate abusive policies. And a rejection of the genetic basis for racial variation in behavior is not only poor scholarship, it may be injurious to unique individuals and to complexly structured societies.

Inshan Ali says:

Rushton’s statement proffered by Frank is another typical pattern used by assorted “biodiversity” and “racial reality” types- namely a hypocritical double standard. For one thing, in their definitions of crime, they conveniently exclude the crime of genocide, even though it is recognized as a crime under both US and international law. The reason for the convenient skip are obvious: supposed white “role models” are the biggest genocidal mass murders in human history. To put this on the table, would undermine Rushton’s racialist project of disparaging blacks, while presenting whites as paragons of goodness and light. The facts of history however tell a much less flattering tale.

Another pattern used by assorted “racial reality” proponents is to skip over and cover up the data on WHITE groups that have been prominent in crime and violence. Other groups are allowed to vary with little question. But a double standard is quickly applied in the case of blacks. The white Irish for example, until recent improvements were notorious in this field. In the 1800s for example in heavy areas of Irish settlement like NYC, white Irish made up 50% of the people arrested while only making up 25% of the city’s population. The pattern was repeated in imprisonment rates, and in other areas of heavy Irish settlement (Sowell 1981). The same pattern is repeated in a finer breakdown where criminals are compared to criminals- the Irish again, made up a large proportion of imprisoned criminals, two to three times the rates of native born Americans (Migration and Culture By Ira Gang, 2nd, Gil S. Epstein 2010) In short, different levels and patterns of crime among poor people are nothing new. White “role models” are unimpressive, whether measured in genocidal rivers of blood, or street crime. The “bio diversity” double standard is sheer hypocrisy.

Donn says:

Like or Dislike: 00

@Frank&Admin:

Without getting into a huge debate or shouting match, what I’d like to ask is has any research been done about possible solutions to this? While this may be tip-toeing into Eugenics, I’m just interested in what possible solutions Rushton or other scientists have proposed?

admin says:

If you start from false premises, you can not solve a problem. That was also Watson’s approach: you can not solve Africa’s problems, if you think all races have equal IQ.

Head start, affirmative action, all mysteriously did not yield significant results in the long run. Of course, if intelligence, by birth, is significantly different, then you can not expect any affirmative action to totally eliminate this.

This is the message of this post here, too. No amount of affirmative action, of remedial running training will ever make a winning champion out of a sausage dog, out of a pygmy. You have to face the truth, even if you don’t like it.

Donn says:

Like or Dislike: 00

I don’t know whether you’re trying to lecture me to suck it up or what, but if the science is showing that blacks have a lower IQ on average, that’s what it’s showing. So blacks have a lower likelihood of being rocket scientists, so what? What I refuse to accept is that it’s something that can’t be remedied, and you can chalk it up to me “not liking the truth” or however you take it.

Donn says:

Like or Dislike: 00

*excuse my last comment as I took the time to read the earlier posts where the percentage that is genetic was discussed

and my apologies as well for coming off overtly hostile, I just wouldn’t want a genetic basis for IQ differences to be a justification for mediocrity, so there has to be a way to at least mitigate it, even if it can’t be taken care of fully

Frank is twisting facts. After enduring malicious personal attacks including posters wishing death on me and hurling heinous racist insults through the reputation system I did eventually overreact and explode on Frank in reaction to his attempts at character assassination. I did not lose the debate. The debate is still ongoing.

While there is some good information there both sides are guilty of juvenile behavior. I will admit to behaving immaturely at times myself, mostly in a reactionary manner.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EgalitarianJay :
Like or Dislike: 0 0Frank is twisting facts. After enduring malicious personal attacks including posters wishing death on me and hurling heinous racist insults through the reputation system I did eventually overreact and explode on Frank in reaction to his attempts at character assassination. I did not lose the debate. The debate is still ongoing.
While there is some good information there both sides are guilty of juvenile behavior. I will admit to behaving immaturely at times myself, mostly in a reactionary manner.

Hey , are you the same EgalitarianJay that has videos on youtube and dailymotion?
I like your videos and anti-racism.
Although I agree with human-stupidity on most issues, this one area where I don’t agree.

I agree with you. Some of the subjects the Admin talks about I can actually agree with. There are a lot of silly, irrational taboos out there and the world would be a better place without them. The race and intelligence controversy is considerably different from some of the stuff I consider to be good on this blog. These racial theories do nothing but insult people and are socially harmful. They are promoted by people with racist agendas. Racism is stupid not the belief in a general human nature or cognitive capacity. We’re not all the same but we’re also not all so different that broad groups of people can not function in modern society.
The belief in this idea is what has lead to a lot of social injustices that create the illusion that there may be a real biological inequality.

By the way Admin I’ve decided to take this debate to a couple of message boards in the interest of sharing my information. I’m going to stop debating Frank and the racists on The Phora for awhile because I’m tired of the hostile environment and long-winded debates. I don’t have time for that style of debate but I can share info.

Check out this post on a thread I recently made where I quote Graves addressing the running ability angle commonly used by racialists.

Human-Stupidity.com says:

Like or Dislike: 00

There is absolutely no doubt that there are differences in IQ, criminality, hormones etc.

The ONLY doubt is if this is immutable, genetic.

Now science seems to show pretty clear that IQ is very strongly hereditary, and half a century of affirmative action have not managed to get black IQ as high or higher as white IQ, while Asians, grandchildren of poor refugees, overcrowd elite Universities.

Now, nobody in his senses denies that bad culture, bad rearing, bad environment makes things worse. But no matter how much good environment and schooling, there still is a deficit, which seems to be hereditary intelligence.

You have to read Rushton’s abbridged edition, and some of the other posts here to really be able to understand the issues.

So we can not deny the existance of such videos. Maybe someone (Frank?) bothers to debunk it or to post a rebuttal video.

Could you please re-link to some other videos where the other sides also have a chance to speak, like the Rushton Graves discussion and the other 7 or 9 part film which I consider somewhat biased, but which lets Rushton and others speak.

When you control for family and neighborhood quality along with Socioeconomic status the Black-White IQ gap is virtually eliminated. There is plenty of evidence that there is no genetic component to IQ disparities between demographic groups. The IQ gaps have actually been decreasing gradually as the environment of Black Americans improves. African immigrants to the USA are actually outperforming Asian-American and European-Americans academically. This strongly suggests that culture rather than biology is responsible for these general trends in disparity.

All of this has been discussed over the course of the discussion here.

Rushton’s research has been exposed as pseudoscience.

Here are the summary arguments of Graves concerning Rushton’s work:

1. Rushton’s arguments rely on r- and K- life history theory. These designations are general descriptions of investment in reproduction and somatic tissue on opposite ends of a spectrum (r- = more reproduction/less soma and K- = less reproduction/more soma.) The problem with this notion is that it has been shown to be incorrect in a series of experiments with a wide variety of organisms. No one took this theory seriously after about 1990.

2. Even if r- and K- theory were correct, I showed that Rushton applied it backwards. By the theory, Africans should be K- selected (K selection occurs in stable environments, such as the tropics) while r-selection was to be favored in fluctuating environments, such as the temperate zones. So by Rushton’s reasoning, Africans should be more genetically capable of intelligence, and Europeans/Asians less.

3. Throughout his work, Rushton selectively uses examples to support his ideas. I have caught him manipulating data in unclear ways, for the purposes of making his points.

4. Rushton requires the existence of biological races, which humans do not have. The existence of geographically based genetic variation is not the same as proving races exist, or that in life history features all Africans are different from all Europeans.

If you want to link to the Race: Science’s Last Taboo video and provide your opinion be my guest. Unfortunately the copyright owner has blocked a few segments of that video on my channel. It is available on Dailymotion.

I disagree with you about Race: The Power of an Illusion. It is a very good video series. The video is intended to be educational and provide the mainstream scientific perspective on race and human diversity. This isn’t all about Race & IQ.
Race is a very complex topic that has a major impact on society.

The goal of my Youtube channel is to combat racism with both a scientific understanding of what race is and what isn’t as well as address the social ramifications of racism. I’m going to upload an episode of Oprah which addresses race that I think may be far more important to my mission than the scientific arguments.

admin says:

High Socioeconomic class blacks: From what I understand, high intelligence blacks flee to white suburbs. They flee the crime, violence and poverty of the less capable or fortunate blacks.

This is the black elite, and they can keep up with the white middle class. Unfortunately, they leave only the lowest of the low in desolate inner city ghettos, devoid of their own black elite that could provide some economic and cultural support and jobs. And provide positive role models.

Real research, and rebuttals by the likes of Rushton, would be interesting.

Egalitarian Jay said:When you control for family and neighborhood quality along with Socioeconomic status the Black-White IQ gap is virtually eliminated. There is plenty of evidence that there is no genetic component to IQ disparities between demographic groups. The IQ gaps have actually been decreasing gradually as the environment of Black Americans improves. African immigrants to the USA are actually outperforming Asian-American and European-Americans academically. This strongly suggests that culture rather than biology is responsible for these general trends in disparity.

Everyone wants to live in the best neighborhoods they can. There are middle class Black neighborhoods. I live in one. What I am saying is that studies have shown that when controlling for family & neighborhood quality + Socioeconomic Status (essentially equalizing environment) there is no IQ gap (see Brooks-Gunn and colleagues chapter 20).

The problem with Rushton’s work is that he is advancing a theory based on evolution when he himself does not have even a basic grasp of the experimental methods required to test his genetic hypothesis. The flaws in his research were detailed in Graves critiques of his work, the general arguments of which were presented to Rushton at the debate at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Rushton has never responded to Graves in print.
I believe he has not because he can not. He simply doesn’t understand evolutionary genetics.

Frank, who I debated at The Phora, emailed Rushton to get a reply to his views of Graves arguments. You can view Rushon’s reply here:

Basically he summarized the thesis for his book and claimed that Graves ducked responding to his data (not true Graves addressed the data).

This is Graves reply:

Rushton’s memory of my critique is quite limited. First, it began with an evaluation of the efficacy of r- and K- theory in general. Professional life-history evolutionists (of which I am, and he is not) no longer regard r- and K- theory as a useful research paradigm. This dismantling occurred due to a series of experiments that tested the predictions of r- and K-theory and showed that they did not hold up in a wide variety of species. Second, I demonstrated that Rushton misapplied r- and K- theory; indeed by MacArthur and Wilson (the originators of r- and K-theory) Africans would be K-selected and Europeans and East Asians (r-selected); just the opposite of what Rushton claimed. Third, I demonstrated that much of the data he cited to make his case was flawed either in collection or source; particularly data like “social organization” and “crime”. Thus at three levels his r- and K-theory approach to human life history variation fails. So I challenge the notion his 3-way spectrum is real; secondly even if it were real, he has not presented an evolutionary theory that could explain it; and third that environmental differences could easily explain much of what he reports.

———————————————

Rushton’s work is pseudoscience. He’s basically seeking to prove the validity of racist stereotypes.
Not only Graves but many other scholars who have reviewed his work consider it to be garbage.

I recommend reviewing those articles by Graves that I sent you but for a shorter critique you can read C Loring Brace’s review of Rushton’s book.

You’re entitled to your opinion Admin but I do feel strongly that this Race and Intelligence segment hurts the credibility of your blog. Again some taboos I actually agree with like teen sexuality and the child porn witchhunt.

But Rushton and his like-minded colleagues are academic propagandists with a racist agenda.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 00

If Rusthon really misinterprets r-K theory, then the hypothesis about life in Asia needing more discipline and long term planning then in Africa, stands on its own.

If that theory is false, then there still is the consistent world wide data about IQ, criminality and more, that stands on its own. The data are are undeniable facts, there are even biological differences like in twin birthing and testosterone.

So what is left is to discuss theories that explain the findings, and to experimentally validate them, if possible. So far all experiments to get blacks, as a whole, up to the level of whites have failed. Just as white attempts at winning the 100 m dash in the Olympics have failed.

Egalitarianjay, thanks for linking to Rushton’s reply.

The discussion always gets to the same academic topics. I am sad though, this article here is totally left aside and ignored.

Thus I request you to comment my article above:

to explain the discrimination of sausage dogs who are born equal to greyhounds, but hampered by negative expectations, discrimination, and lack of running training. After all, differences are only skin deep.

What do you think about affirmative action and 50% quotas for sausage dogs in dog races? After all, there are many more sausage dogs then greyhounds in this world. They just don’t get their chances in the dog races. Regular training, head start, affirmative action could close the gap in running ability, and in a few generations sausage dogs could have equal running speed as greyhounds.

And please speak about the negative expectations in pygmies (whose race does not exist), that makes pygmies lose their chances to Olympic 100 meter gold medals.

You might want to start a top level reply thread, if this is getting too far indented. Thank you for your valued answer.

Simple answer to your analogy: Dog racing and human racing are not comparable to the Black-White achievement gap because there is no historical evidence of racist discrimination that has disenfranchised certain groups of racing dogs or human runners. Also no one said that there were no anatomical differences and obvious differences like height and bone structure will have an effect on certain athletic abilities. But as far as race being only skin deep is concerned I would recommend that you look at what evolutionary biologists have to say on this topic.

Read this interview with Graves who covers various racial topics including athleticism:

Now back to Rushton and his theories on racial differences. First of all the theory of Asians evolving in more cognitively demanding environments doesn’t stand because there is no biological rationale to make that assumption nor anthropological and archeological evidence supporting that theory.

C Loring Brace actually covers the real scientific evidence on the matter which indicates that intelligence is not unevenly distributed across human populations.

As for the alleged racial patterns, as Graves said he has provided serious reasons to doubt such a pattern exists. There is no evidence that crime rates are so constant that we should give any credibility to the idea that certain populations have a natural tendency towards criminal behavior. For instance there are African and Caribbean countries that are majority Black with low crime rates as well as European countries with very high crime rates (most perpetrators being White).

If race determined cultural achievement and a society’s standard of living how do you explain the large gap in government quality between North and South Korea? You’ve got the same ethnic group with essentially the same genetic stock but radically different quality in government and standard of living for the citizens. There are too many examples that contradict Rushton’s racial generalizations.

Rushton’s research on biological data is no more credible. No serious scientists in recent times are trying to make racial correlations with hormone assays and Graves pointed out numerous flaws in the sources that Rushton cited. Read the section on Hormone Biology within the article “Misuse of Life History Theory”:

Twinning rates vary within and between populations and rates have changed through time. Significant environmental effects on twinning rates are well-documented. There is simply no evidence that any documented variation between ethnic groups is indicative of genetic differences that cannot be changed and establish ranking.

Here is a reply to Rushton’s email that I showed you from another scholar named Scott MacEachern:

As for that email, the bulk is just filler, a restatement of the abstract for Rushton’s book. His thesis here is simply that this conjunction of data (his ‘highly consistent three-way pattern of racial differences’) is significant and can only be explained genetically.

The problems with this claim are so great that it’s sometimes hard to know where to begin, but in general, here are some of the main problems:

(1) Aggregation of data is only useful if some degree of control and comparability are exerted over the data being aggregated – otherwise, you end up with the GIGO Rule (Garbage In, Garbage Out). Many of Rushton’s data sources are exceptionally poor, to the point of being caricatures of scientific research: thus, one of his primary sources on ‘sexual behaviour’ is a book of 19th-century travel porn, of no serious scientific value, and many of the studies that he cites on IQ and brain size are based on datasets that even people who agree with him accept as unreliable. In the most direct sense, many of his data are the garbage in the GIGO Rule. You may or may not have read David Barash’s review of Rushton’s methodology: “…the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit.” Barash, David 1995. Review of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. _Animal Behaviour_ 49:1131-1133

(2) Aggregating data on (say) brain size or twinning rates into his three ‘racial’ groupings conceals the very significant variations in aggregated characteristics _within_ those racial groups. Essentially, he reduces very, very, very diverse characteristics down to single numbers, then generalises those single numbers to every population within his putative races. However, averages among diverse populations tell you almost nothing about the distributions of those diverse characteristics, nor about the evolutionary pressures that might have brought them into being.

(3) Many of the characteristics that he thinks are evolutionarily determined have actually changed dramatically over historical time-periods in different parts of the world (and are extremely variable _within_ his ‘racial’ populations – see #2 above): besides obvious things like longevity, fertility and infant mortality rates, these include characteristics like twinning rates, speed of sexual maturation/first menarche and so on. He treats them as immutable evolutionary differences, whereas in fact they seem entirely sensitive to historical contingency over short time-scales.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Just so everyone is clear. I never conceded defeat to Morpheus / EgalitarianJay because he out-debated me. I simply left the forum for a awhile hence forfeited the debate as I could no longer be bothered. Morpheus did not score some knockout victory.

Frank says:

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: Frank is twisting facts. After enduring malicious personal attacks including posters wishing death on me and hurling heinous racist insults through the reputation system I did eventually overreact and explode on Frank in reaction to his attempts at character assassination. I did not lose the debate. The debate is still ongoing.

FRANK: On the other forum Egalitarian Jay has called me a pedophile and a rapist without cause. He has accused me of being a Klansman, a genocidal maniac and a Nazi. He sent me interracial pornography allegedly because OTHER POSTERS were attacking him.

Egalitarian Jay accuses me of “character assassination” when he is the one who publicly and wrongfully accused me of being a rapist.

The fact is Egalitarian Jay has a huge problem when someone can debate him on the issues. If you read the entire thread in question, you will see that I conducted myself in a civilized manner when debating EJ. It was Egalitarian Jay who exploded and went ballistic when the heat got a little too hot for him.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: Everyone wants to live in the best neighborhoods they can. There are middle class Black neighborhoods. I live in one. What I am saying is that studies have shown that when controlling for family & neighborhood quality + Socioeconomic Status (essentially equalizing environment) there is no IQ gap (see Brooks-Gunn and colleagues chapter 20).

FRANK: This strikes me as an outlandish claim. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Studies illustrated that when environment is controlled, black children have a definite increase in IQ but by adulthood the IQ scores have regressed toward the average mean for African-Americans.

Previous studies by credible psychologists have shown that the IQ gap actually remained in place as recent as 2005:

Of course, one cannot ignore the fact that environment plays a part in the issue of intelligence as well. However, it is quite silly to completely omit the role heredity plays without offering a fair hearing to the theories.

Frank: The fact is Egalitarian Jay has a huge problem when someone can debate him on the issues. If you read the entire thread in question, you will see that I conducted myself in a civilized manner when debating EJ. It was Egalitarian Jay who exploded and went ballistic when the heat got a little too hot for him.

EgalitarianJay: That is a lie. Any time I have retaliated against you has been for your uncivil behavior and malicious attacks. For instance the interracial porn PM was in direct reaction to this post:

“It is much easier to bully around young Youtube girls isn’t it Morpheus?”

The allegation is an example of character assassination as the charge is damaging to my reputation. I admitted here to being immature in my reactions to Frank and the other posters but Frank doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge his behavior.

He complains about me joking about him being a rapist and a pedophile but doesn’t acknowledge that those attacks were in reaction to a flame war that he started. Frank has continually personally attacked me in the middle of a debate I tried to keep civil.

Frank: “you are little more than an impoverished underemployed internet college punk who likely lives in his mommy’s basement.”

Frank has not only attacked me he has made personal attacks on me and held to those attacks for pages and pages completely derailing discussion. For instance he accused me of demonic and animalistic behavior towards a female poster on Youtube and insisted that his perception was the case even when it was outlined that it wasn’t. Even other posters admitted he way off base with the accusation.

I was banned for 1 month for sending porn links through PM to racist Phora posters who were sending me malicious racist insults through the rep system. If anyone wants to see the comments for themselves here they are:

Frank: “Oh yes Morpheus, being called names by an impoverished sexual deviant and likely future sex offender really hurts me. You are correct, I cannot stop your undisciplined animal like behaviour. Hopefully, when your beastly nature forces you to cross those lines I believe you will eventually cross the police will be able to stop you.”

Helios: “I have not read this retarded discussion, but are you actually suggesting that he’s likely to be a sex offender because he has viewed pornography? If so, congratulations, that’s one of the stupidest things I’ve read on this site.”

And as I recall THAT is the post where I retaliated by sending Frank a rep comment calling him a racist pedophile then mocked him in the Shoutbox calling him a rapist. Personal attacks do make me angry and I am prone to retaliate albeit in as immature a manner as the initial attack. I need to work on how I react to stuff like this. But I do not start these confrontations and try to avoid them if possible.

Frank revels in them. As I pointed out before he will literally cling to a personal attack for multiple pages because he knows it agitates his opponent. He is not a civil debater. He is manipulative and dishonest. I deactivated my rep comments on The Phora because I was sick of the personal attacks. I have decided to leave because I don’t have time for long-winded debates. Particularly with Frank.

We have debates on The Phora that span months and go on for 30 or 40 pages. This is due to Frank’s obsessive debate style. He over quotes and harps on the same issues over and over again. While that style of debate is annoying to reply to I would not mind it so much if it weren’t for the persistent personal attacks. I do not have time for that.

Frank has a personal vendetta against me. He’s angry because I once called him a racist in a debate and wants to win arguments and pick fights with me at any opportunity. I suspect he does it because he wants the reputation of being a hero on that message board. He gets upset when racialist posters disapprove of his debates with me.

Another poster recently called Frank a mental midget and in reaction Frank conceded defeat to me and declared he was leaving the board only to return immediately when he got some supportive comments. This behavior strikes me as someone who is emotionally unstable and desperately seeks the approval of his peers.

Frank has accused me of intimidating women, being a criminally prone sexual deviant, being a jobless loser in need of psychiatric help insulted me in numerous other ways I can’t even recall and never once were these attacks provoked. Any insults towards him were in retaliation, admittedly in ways that paint me in no better a light but even though this is well documented Frank continues to be dishonest about his involvement and initiation of these confrontations.

Frank I encourage you to just stop. Stop lying and stop attacking people. Your personal vendetta is obsessive and strange. You need to quit and find another hobby or atleast not get so absorbed in debating people to the extreme of picking fights with them.

Nisbett: “More importantly, statistically equating blacks and whites on measures of the environment that include not only traditional indicators of SES but also measures of family and neighborhood quality virtually eliminates the B/W IQ gap (Brooks-Gunn & colleagues, in chapter xx).”

Frank: The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Studies illustrated that when environment is controlled, black children have a definite increase in IQ but by adulthood the IQ scores have regressed toward the average mean for African-Americans.

EgalitarianJay: As I pointed out before that adoption study was seriously flawed and admittedly so by its own authors.

Nisbett: The Scarr and Weinberg study held neither race nor expected IQ nor adoptive setting constant. An additional problem with the Scarr and Weinberg study is that the Black children were adopted at a later age than the others, which would prompt an assumption of lower initial IQ for them. In addition, the Black children’s mothers had lower educational levels than did those of the other two groups, which also would prompt an assumption of lower initial IQ. Finally, the “quality of placement” was higher for White children than for other children. All of these facts combined mean that it is not possible to know what to predict under either a hereditarian model or a pure environmental model.”

Frank: Previous studies by credible psychologists have shown that the IQ gap actually remained in place as recent as 2005

EgalitarianJay: While a qualified psychologist I would not call Rushton a credible researcher. He is known to be consistently dishonest and many scholars find his arguments to be ridiculous.

Nisbett: “I frankly don’t take Rushton seriously. Jensen would be a different matter, but I have been told he is in his cups and Rushton just signs his name to everything he writes.”

That being said research has been down by credible Psychologists that reach different conclusions:

These theories have been looked into and discredited as pseudoscience.

Frank you are ofcourse free to post where you wish but I have no desire to debate you any further. You’ve come here making up lies in defense of your participation in flame wars on The Phora and I predict that any further exchange here will initiate more long-winded screeds that aren’t worth anyone’s time.

Admin I’ve said all I care to say on this topic.

If you wish to continue this discussion I recommend making another blog entry with a fresh topic.

Perhaps you’d like to link to Race: The Power of an Illusion and discuss your impression of that TV Special.

1) Socio-economic status was controlled and this lead to a temporarily increase in child IQ for all groups. However, the increase and regression occurred in all groups. It occurred across the board universally.

2) Rushton points out that mullato children who were believed to be black and faced the same conditions as the black kids actually scored in the intermediate between their white and black counterparts.

3) Sandra Scarr did indeed admit to a flaw in the study as she admitted that the researchers were attempting to prove an enivronmental model.

4) It is silly to assume an initial lower IQ for black children who were adopted a few months or a year later as IQ is most environmental sensitive and elastic during these times.

5) One cannot assume that “educational levels” translates into IQ. I would be more interested in the IQ scores of the mothers rather than mere educational levels at a time where it was common for women to be in the homemaking craft.

The study you have linked is quite meaningless unless we know the types of IQ testing that was used, sample sizes etc…

If the tests were of g-loaded weak nature, they would prove very little

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: That is a lie. Any time I have retaliated against you has been for your uncivil behavior and malicious attacks. For instance the interracial porn PM was in direct reaction to this post:

FRANK: One thing people will learn about Egalitarian Jay is that he is quite dishonest. You will notice that he linked you to post # 108 only. Apparently I drove him to flood my mailbox with porn with an unprovoked attack.

What Egalitarian Jay declines to tell you dear readers is he attacked me as “racist” in post # 104 of that thread and mocked me personally as someone who was “rambling.”

EGALITARIAN JAY: He complains about me joking about him being a rapist and a pedophile but doesn’t acknowledge that those attacks were in reaction to a flame war that he started. Frank has continually personally attacked me in the middle of a debate I tried to keep civil.

FRANK: You will see that Egalitarian Jay lies to the forum. He links to post # 370 in the Graves\Rushton debate as proof that I attacked him when he was being civil. However, lets examine the entire thread.

Frank says:

If you wish to continue this discussion I recommend making another blog entry with a fresh topic.

Perhaps you’d like to link to Race: The Power of an Illusion and discuss your impression of that TV Special.

FRANK: Of course this is up to the blog administrators to accept or reject your offer. But why don’t you start your own blog and post them yourself? Why should the people who run this successful blog give you any further free publicity?

Especially, when you just made it clear you will not debate one of your chief opponents?

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Have to correct a link:

FRANK: You will see that Egalitarian Jay lies to the forum. He links to post # 370 in the Graves\Rushton debate as proof that I attacked him when he was being civil. However, lets examine the entire thread.

In post # 367, Egalitarian Jay calls me “arrogant.”

“Your arguments are extremely weak and you are so arrogant as to insult the intelligence of the scholars so rather than waste my time with you it’s more economic to simply let the actual scholar in question defend their arguments.”

EGALITARIAN JAY: Nisbett: “I frankly don’t take Rushton seriously. Jensen would be a different matter, but I have been told he is in his cups and Rushton just signs his name to everything he writes.”

FRANK: What is interesting about this cherry picked quote Egalitarian Jay drummed up from our debate is that he omitted to include his own commentary:

EGALITARIAN JAY: “I’m not just saying this because I favor the views of Nisbett, Frank. I will admit right now that Nisbett’s comment on cherry-picking in his email to me was disappointing. He hasn’t even bothered to read all of Jensen and Rushton’s reply to him.”

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Frank: What Egalitarian Jay declines to tell you dear readers is he attacked me as “racist” in post # 104 of that thread and mocked me personally as someone who was “rambling.”

EgalitarianJay: Notice how Frank calls me a liar yet I have stated that Frank attacks me because he is angry I call him and others racist. He feels that the this charge which is a labeling of an ideological viewpoint gives him license to personally attack me under the guise that he is “standing up to me.”

You did ramble Frank and somehow that justifies childish insults on your part.

Frank: You will see that Egalitarian Jay lies to the forum. He links to post # 370 in the Graves\Rushton debate as proof that I attacked him when he was being civil. However, lets examine the entire thread.

In post # 367, Egalitarian Jay calls me “arrogant.”

EgalitarianJay: You insulted the intelligence of a scholar which is arrogant. Again I criticized you for a specific behavior or ideological view and in your mind this justifies personal attacks which have absolutely nothing to do with the debate. The problem here Frank is you are very spiteful. If anyone says anything to you that you regard as offensive you lash out at them maliciously and relentlessly for revenge then have the audacity to call yourself the victim.

Frank:The moderator in question admitted that he did not read the thread and attacked a strawman argument. I never said that people who view pornography were likely to be sex offenders.

EgalitarianJay: You said that I was likely to be a sex offender solely on the basis that I sent posters porn links in retaliation for the heinous racist attacks on me. You even conceded the point to that moderator and apologized for your childish behavior. I suppose given your insecurity you are more likely to concede your faults to your peers rather than be honest with your opponents.

Frank: Of course this is up to the blog administrators to accept or reject your offer. But why don’t you start your own blog and post them yourself? Why should the people who run this successful blog give you any further free publicity? Especially, when you just made it clear you will not debate one of your chief opponents?

EgalitarianJay: I have no desire to make a blog and the Admin has acknowledged that I have raised the quality of discussion on this subject linking to both my videos and my channel and thanking me for my contribution. While we disagree on the topic he has acknowledged my participation as productive. He is the one who mentioned those videos so perhaps he would like to discuss them. That is all I am suggesting.

And I have said that I do not desire to debate you for this very reason. You are so self-absorbed and so obsessed with scoring imaginary debate points over me that you came to the blog to promote a flame war and my eventual banning just to get attention and smear me. Why would I want to debate someone like that?

Look at this current exchange. We are talking about the past flame war on The Phora rather than the Race and Intelligence debate because you decided to bring it up. I have simply corrected the record pointing out that you were just as immature as I was on the board and in fact more malicious and persistent with your personal attacks while I was more reactionary. Those are the facts.

Again I recommend that you drop this childish exercise and move on to something else.

I have debated you long enough Frank and gotten to know what type of person you are.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: Another poster recently called Frank a mental midget and in reaction Frank conceded defeat to me and declared he was leaving the board only to return immediately when he got some supportive comments. This behavior strikes me as someone who is emotionally unstable and desperately seeks the approval of his peers.

FRANK: You do know that he called you a mental midget as well? You accuse me of emotional instability when you are the one sending me interracial pornography because OTHER POSTERS attacked you. You accuse me of emotional instability when you attack me as a child molester yet explode when someone calls you the “N-word.”

The one who is emotionally unstable is the one who takes abuse, comes back for more, flames away and then plays the victim when he snaps.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Again Frank I have admitted my reaction to your attempts at character assassination (accusing me of bullying Youtube girls) and insults (calling me a future sex offender, jobless loser, demonic and animalistic etc.)
was immature. But you are not honest enough to admit your own stupidity and choose to harp on about this issue.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: You said that I was likely to be a sex offender solely on the basis that I sent posters porn links in retaliation for the heinous racist attacks on me. You even conceded the point to that moderator and apologized for your childish behavior. I suppose given your insecurity you are more likely to concede your faults to your peers rather than be honest with your opponents.

FRANK: I accused you of being a sex offender in the making due to your continual of pushing of interracial pornography on those who angered you. Your counsel to other posters to commit incest and homsexual prison rape not to mention disturbing comments like this:

EGALITARIAN JAY: “You probably Pm’d one of those posters complaining about receiving porn links from me and lost your mind when you saw that big breasted White woman getting banged by a thuggish looking Black man telling her to spit on his dick.

You like that sort of thing just tell the truth.

All of you racist White men have a closet fetish for interracial porn and fantasize about having sex with women of color.

The reason I brought your antics here Morpheus or EgalitarianJay is I wanted people to see that you are not the mature high and mighty righteous poster you pretend to be. You chastise other for being childish while you are the one who stores filthy offensive porn on his computer and sends it to be people who hurts his feelings.

As far as leaving you alone goes? I proved what I wanted to prove here. I will leave this medium…for now. However, if you return to the phora, I will debate you as I see fit…

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

I sent you porn links that I got in a 20 second search on Google images. Only in your demented mind is joking around about pornography evidence that one is a potential sex offender. I told another racist poster on The Phora who turned out to be a troll that was permanently banned to do things that White racists are known to do (e.g. incest, prison rape etc.) and in your twisted mind this means that I am encouraging illegal activity. It was an insult. And you know that. You are just a liar who twists facts to present your own distorted viewpoints.

I don’t know anyone personally who posts on this blog. You came here because you are obsessed with debating me and obsessed with painting me in as bad a light as possible. I have been able to be civil with the Admin and other posters here as well as elsewhere who have racialist views but with you one way or another debate devolves into immature flame wars. This is because of you and your immaturity, Frank.

You have berated me on multiple occasions with insults that span multiple pages. I do not have time for you and your obsessive, deranged tendencies.

I find it ironic that you would accuse me of being disrespectful to women and a potential sex offender when you insulted my mother calling her a slut in retaliation for me trolling you in the Shoutbox and were not above having friendly discussions with Clancy about your mutual contempt for me after he posted a pornographic photoshop of my 4th Grade school photo. You did not publicly condemn him as a potential sex offender and continued normal interactions with him with out any sort of protest.

It is because you have a personal vendetta against me that you fixate on any little thing that I do.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Frank has confirmed his obsessive tendencies.

I recently went to the Phora and after saying he was leaving this forum I caught Frank continuing to talk about me after I said I was leaving. I decided to ask Frank why he is so obsessed with me. It was a simple question.

admin says:

It is great to have some lively discussion about issues. But if it gets to a pure pissing contest about who offended whom, then we get a bit off topic.

And, maybe I am too dumb to understand the comments about THIS article. I would appreciate more focus on the actual examples.

EgalitarianJay said:
Simple answer to your analogy: Dog racing and human racing are not comparable to the Black-White achievement gap because there is no historical evidence of racist discrimination that has disenfranchised certain groups of racing dogs or human runners.

Oh yes, pygmies and sausage dogs have clearly been excluded from race training. Haven’t seen one single sausage dog in a dog race. Nor in training. No in an affirmative action training as a young puppy. They are not given a chance. Everyone reinforces the belief that they cannot win on a race track.

Any pygmies on any major University in a athletic scholarship? Or at least on a High School? Any quotas? And yes, pygmies get even killed they are persecuted. That is the reason why they can not run fast enough. If you give them a chance, you might find a Flynn effect, they will start closing the gap.

Pygmies are clearly disenfranchised and there is no proof they can not perform with excellence in Olympic races. It is all socially constructed, and all differences in running abilities origin from social injustice.

And what about disenfranchisement of Vietnamese boat people and Chinese railroad slaves ahem workers a couple of decades ago?

Also no one said that there were no anatomical differences and obvious differences like height and bone structure will have an effect on certain athletic abilities. But as far as race being only skin deep is concerned I would recommend that you look at what evolutionary biologists have to say on this topic.

Read this interview with Graves who covers various racial topics including athleticism:

One argument is that dogs were bred for certain qualities. These people don’t understand that evolution does the same. A long term investing planner who waits for a return on investment in 20 years would miserably fail in Somalia but succeed in Japan. And a happy go lucky non-planning central African would have died in the first Japanese winter, thousands of years ago.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Admin,

I think it would be better if you stop using your analogies because they are getting quite silly. Has it ever occurred to you that humans in general might have naturally selected for intelligence and that the trait is not clinally distributed?

Take the perspectives of these experts on evolution for example:

IV. RACE

18. Jensen argues, in effect, that cognitive ‘races’ exist because genes related to human cognitive systems will have been subjected to diversifying selection in the same way as some superficial physical or physiological characters. He suggests that northern migrants would have faced particularly difficult conditions. As a result, groups of African descent will have lower frequencies of genes for superior cognitive abilities, compared with those of Caucasian or Mongoloid ancestry.

19. This completely misses the point. Our African hominid ancestors themselves evolved as a social-cooperative species in order to deal with conditions of extreme environmental uncertainty, as the climate dried, forests thinned, and former forest dwellers were ‘flung out’ onto the open savannah or forest margins. It is crucial to point out that when even as few as two individuals cooperate they create a new, social environment that is vastly more complex than anything experienced in the physical world. It is that complexity on the social plane which rapidly impelled the tripling of brain size and furnished the unique cognitive capacity for dealing with complexity in general – in the physical world as well as the social.

20. The uniquely adaptable, highly selected, socio-cognitive system that resulted was a prerequisite, not a consequence, of human migration patterns. Although inhabiting every possible niche, humans have only a quarter of the genetic variation of highly niche-specific chimpanzees (Kaessmann et al 1999). The system operates on a completely different plane from blind genetic selection – one which can ‘model’ the world conceptually, and anticipate and change it. If our heads get cold we invent hats, rather than wait for natural selection to reshape our skulls and increase the size of our brains (which is what Jensen suggests in one particularly questionable y line of argument). As Owens & King (1999) point out, what minor genetic differences exist are ‘quite literally superficial… the possibility that human history has been characterised by genetically homogeneous groups (“races”) distinguished by major biological differences, is not consistent with genetic evidence’.

21. Owens & King also point out that ‘Of course prejudice does not require a rational basis, let alone an evolutionary one, but the myth of major genetic differences across “races” is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence’ (453). This culmination of Jensen’s thesis, then, is as hollow as the conceptual foundations on which it based. It really is time this negative and fatalistic model of humanity was put behind us once and for all.

Source: DeMystifying G by Ken Richardson

Psychometricians admit that intelligence is clearly a polygenic trait (e.g., Jensen, 1973). The existence of a continuous distribution of intelligence, although not necessarily a bell- shaped one, is itself an indication of a polygenic trait. Jensen advanced the argument that there must exist differences at literally thousands of loci that account for the African deficit in intelligence. Despite this assertion, he was never able to demonstrate mechanisti- cally why or how the existence of genetic variation necessarily meant the deficiency of one population in a particular trait. Thus, his scenario was, in the final analysis, ridiculous. It is true that at the time he put forth his argument, data were just emerging on the measurement of genetic variation (polymorphism) in humans of various races (Nei & Livshits, 1989; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1982). However, anthropological data demonstrating that even morphological traits are not consistently differentiated between races had existed for centuries (J. Diamond, 1994, Brace, 1995). Take the example of skin color, which varies on a cline from tropical to arctic. Several “racial” groups have dark skin, including non- European Caucasians and Australoids. A tree of human “racial” groups would have both of these populations on the branches farthest away from Africans (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994). Thus, clearly dark skin does not vary consistently with “racial” category

To modern population geneticists the idea that races differ consistently for any trait is nonsense. For example, there is more genetic variation among the people of the African continent than there is among all the rest of the human species combined (J. Diamond, 1994), and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that this variation excludes alleles that impact intelligence. Moreover, as Dobzhansky and Montagu (1975) so eloquently point out, natural selection for mental ability is overwhelmingly uniform throughout the world.

Like I said before Admin the real weakness of the theories of scholars like Rushton and Jensen is that they do not understand evolutionary genetics and don’t know how to develop experimental methods to test their hypothesis.

From the above source:

Despite the psychometricians’ inflated claims about the genetic basis of intelligence, almost none of them have any real or practical knowledge of experimental quantitative genetics. Parroting evolutionary and ecological concepts, many of them apply these para- digms uncritically as they search for simplistic explanations for extremely complicated aspects of human society (Graves & Place, 1995). The proper utilization of core evolutionary and quantitative techniques would shatter the psychometricians’ program. For example, efforts to test g experimentally would be rife with difficulties-of course, that could explain why the psychometricians avoid such a critical test. Additionally, there are several other alternative hypotheses concerning generalized intellectual ability the psychometricians have yet to test.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

ADMIN: Frank, you are probably at loss here?

FRANK: No loss at all Admin. Egalitarian Jay is merely doing what he does best. He is simply cutting and pasting every strawman attack on the works of Rushton and Jensen. I have seen these links so many times, it has become boring.

If you go to the following thread you will see that I address Graves arguments involving testosterone and twin egging rates. In fact you will discover that Graves is quite ignorant about these issues and many other side issues as well.

You will also note that I present solid evidence of how forensic anthropologists can determine the race of a subject with 100% accuracy using mere pelvic and skull measurements. In fact the evidence of racial differences is so clear…well…just read the thread and you will see:

Also remember this is the thread that sent Egalitarian Jay into a near psychotic episode.

I also address the absolute defamatory twistings made against Jensen’s actual position. You will find two articles from Neven Sesardić that deal with the issue of race and the distortions of Jensens works…

It addresses that illogical arguments that race cannot exist in humans as it does in dogs because our breeding was less than controlled. To accept the arguments of Graves and his personal clown squad you have to ignore the overwhelming to the contrary.

In all fairness, I have already cleaned Jay’s clock once on this issue. I do not have the desire to repeat the same experience on this medium.

I do not have his skill for repeating the same long-winded debates over several forums.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Ofcourse in reality I dealt with all of those sources before the debate devolved into a flame war due to Frank’s attempts at character assassination. I withdrew from the debate after it was clear that all I would be doing is refuting more rehashed arguments for another 30 or 40 pages as is the case with all the debates I’ve had with Frank. Most of his sources are laughable, were addressed and some amounted to little more than him posting a link without extrapolating an argument then declaring he had addressed my sources.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Of course no one is keeping score so there is no official debate winner but I would like to outline some facts which indicate that my argument is more credible.

Here’s the key issue….

This debate revolves around the subject of race and intelligence. Race and Intelligence are concepts meant to describe human attributes that are rooted in biology. Race is a word ascribed to biological variation. Intelligence is a word ascribed to mental ability. The topic of discussion is whether or not races differ in innate intelligence which are caused by genetic differences between races. Logically one would need to provide sources from actual experts on the subject in order to get any kind of definitive answer and present a credible argument.

I have gone in the direction of synthesizing the arguments of experts on biology, culture and the mind to present an argument that is consistent with scientific consensus on the matter. My sources include Evolutionary Biologists, Biological and Cultural Anthropologists, Geneticists, Psychologists, Archeologists and Historians. Frank relies primarily on the work of Psychologists but has also included Geneticists, Forensic Anthropologists and Medical researchers and some amateur commentators.

My argument: While human genetic variation does exist race is a loaded term with different biological and social definitions. There is a semantic dispute over its meaning and debate over its scientific utility. In society we have socially constructed races that are ascribed to demographic groups.

I have argued that biological races do not exist in humans. There is genetic variation between continental populations which has indeed lead to some recognizable, heritable differences between certain populations but most genetic differentiation within the human species is within these continental populations rather than between them. Based on my sources this means that there are no major genetic distinctions between populations with different anatomical trait complexes that are of evolutionary significance. It isn’t denied that complexes exist (e.g. there are variations in traits like skin color, hair texture, craniofacial form, body build etc. and some populations differ notably in these aspects). The argument is that because of discordant variation classifications of human populations into groups based on these traits is not justified. In order for races to exist traits that make up these complexes would have to be intricately linked in order to establish that such traits reflect unique evolutionary paths or racial divergences from populations with different traits. This is not the case with humans.

Races or phylogenetic sub-species are absent in humans.

The debate over race and intelligence involves a few scholars advancing a fringe theory which is inconsistent with the mainstream scientific consensus. This theory that race determines average differences in innate mental ability relies on modern IQ testing which does confirm a disparity in the average scores of demographic groups however the hereditarian interpretation of these results relies on construction speculations about the cause. Racial hereditarians insist on a genetic component which implies immutable differences in intelligence between races.

My sources have refuted this assertion on empirical grounds by debunking the evolutionary theories which attempt to explain the genetic hypothesis and have shown that not only is there no credible evidence for the hereditarian interpretation but as the environment of disenfranchised groups improves the IQ gap and standard of living gap that IQ tests correlate with are gradually being reduced indicating that the gap is not immutable and infact entirely caused by environment.

Frank’s argument: Frank argues that race is a biological reality. He insists that races differ in intelligence and temperament and that there is a hierarchy in these attributes which reveals that Mongoloids are at the top followed by Caucasoids and Negroids are at the very bottom. He relies heavily on the work of Rushton as his basis for this theory. He points to statistics such as crime rates as his evidence for this alleged reality and forensic, medical and genetic research to establish that races are real.

Key Point: The research of Rushton is not credible

As I have mentioned before Rushton’s work relies on an ecological theory known as r/k selection to explain the alleged pattern in racial differences that exist in society. I countered the citation of Rushton with the rebuttals by Joseph Graves.

Graves critiqued Rushton’s theory in detail and explained that r/k selection theory was proven to be wrong by a series of experiments which revealed that its predictions did not hold up in a variety of organisms. These experiments lead to r-k theory’s almost total abandonment by Life History Evolutionists as far back as the 1990s as it was generally deemed to not be credible. Graves pointed this out in his debate with Rushton at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Graves has argued not only that the theory is not valid, but Rushton applied it backwards and that Rushton’s data is inadequate for supporting his theory. The data itself is actually tainted and of poor quality. As one of my academic contacts, Scott MacEachern noted, some of Rushton’s sources are mere caricatures of science. I noted that Rushton has not responded to Graves in print and therefore he shouldn’t be taken seriously on arguments over human evolution if he cannot even defend his theories against experts on evolution.

During our debate Frank initially tried to defend Rushton’s credibility by showing that his theory had support by other scholars. He did this by linking to Rushton’s own website which listed a series of endorsements, including one by E.O. Wilson who developed r/k selection theory.

I pointed out that Rushton’s endorsements were full of hereditarian Psychologists who were Rushton’s colleagues and grantees of the Pioneer Fund, a grant foundation notorious for financing racialist research. They are not experts on human evolution therefore their endorsements do nothing for Rushton’s credibility. Even though Wilson himself is a biologist his endorsement amounted to little more than a thumbs up of approval. He has not critiqued Rushton’s work in detail the way Graves has.

Eventually Frank emailed Rushton himself to get answers on his perspective on Graves critique. In the email it was revealed that Rushton does not even recall the arguments of Graves in detail. Rushton restated the thesis for his book and claimed that Graves ducked responding to his data which supports a racial pattern that only an evolutionary theory could explain. I emailed Graves and in his response he argued that he dismantled Rushton’s theory as well as showed that his data was unreliable for testing his theory as well as tainted. Therefore he challenges whether the racial pattern is real, notes that even if real Rushton has not presented a valid theory that could explain it and the environment could easily explain much of what Rushton reports.

Frank eventually abandoned defending Rushton’s evolutionary arguments in favor of defending the validity of the data itself, arguing that even if Rushton’s explanation is wrong the pattern he identified is still valid. He focused particularly on testosterone and twinning rates. He claimed Graves review of this data was not valid and revealed his ignorance. I argued that Graves review of this data were backed up by sources. Frank cannot find any sources that directly dispute Graves arguments over this data while I can find several that dispute Rushton’s arguments.

Graves was not the only critics of Rushton. I linked to book reviews and articles by Anthropologists and Psychologists such as C Loring Brace, Richard Lewontin, Scott MacEachern, Leonard Lieberman Richard Nisbett and James Flynn. Brace and Lewontin made similar criticisms that Graves did while Lieberman disputed Rushton cranio-racial hierarchy arguments. Nisbett argues that Rushton ignores and misinterprets a lot of the Psychometric research that challenges the validity of the Hereditarian position for the Black-White IQ gap. Flynn argues that as the Socioeconomic Environment of Black Americans improves they have made narrowed the academic gap with White Americans indicating that the IQ gap is being reduced. MacEachern argued that Rushton distorted the African historical record in order to support his invalid evolutionary theory of how races came to differ in intelligence.

Frank tried to dispute the arguments of all of these researchers including attacking their credibility in comical ways but at the end of the day the evidence against Rushton’s theories were clearly overwhelming.
Some examples of the way Frank tried to discredit my sources was by challenging Graves authority to speak on biomedical research when it was pointed out that
Graves argued against the reliability of racial medicine.

Frank insisted that Graves was not a qualified medical researcher therefore his opinion was worthless (an Appeal to Authority fallacy). I emailed Graves and he confirmed that not only was he qualified to speak on the scientific disciplines relevant to the biomedical field but that he actually taught Evolutionary Medicine at a medical school. His book The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium even received a positive review in the Journal of the American Medical Association. I provided a source confirming that Evolutionary Medicine was a valid field of study that was gaining recognition and acceptance within the medical field.

Not only did Graves defend his own credentials but Alan Goodman, the author of that review, defended Graves qualifications to speak on aspects of biomedical research, pointing out that as a Phd is a degree that trains a person to do research. Graves has a Phd in Evolutionary Biology. Evolution is relevant to the biomedical field because genetics impact risk to certain health conditions and it is important to understand the evolutionary mechanisms that determine genetic variation.

Frank had no credible rebuttal to these statements. All he could do was insist that Graves had no clinical medical training and dismiss Goodman because he was not a medical professional. This is not a credible rebuttal because I never argued that Graves had clinical medical training. Frank seems to think that the only biomedical research is that which requires clinical medical training when it was pointed out time and against that Graves biomedical research was on evolutionary medicine.

Frank tried to discredit Nisbett based on his citation of a study which turned out to be fraudulent and insisted this destroyed his credibility even though Nisbett admitted to be unaware at the time that the study was a fraud. This is a case of special pleading since Frank is still supportive of Rushton despite his blatantly dishonest research practices.

In our most recent debates Frank has attempted to attack Graves credibility by citing two book reviews. One is by an actual scholar. The other is by an anonymous racialist who runs a blog. I have already responded to the blogger but the this time the debates got so juvenile that I decided to withdraw from discussion and stop wasting my time debating Frank.

I am appreciative of you call to dispense with the personal attacks Admin. Frank currently has a thread running on The Phora which is fixated on personally attacking me. I have no interest in debating this individual any further and do no feel that his participation raises the quality of debate so I am going to discuss this issue elsewhere.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: Frank’s argument: Frank argues that race is a biological reality. He insists that races differ in intelligence and temperament and that there is a hierarchy in these attributes which reveals that Mongoloids are at the top followed by Caucasoids and Negroids are at the very bottom. He relies heavily on the work of Rushton as his basis for this theory. He points to statistics such as crime rates as his evidence for this alleged reality and forensic, medical and genetic research to establish that races are real.

FRANK: And I invite people to come to the forum in which I post and examine the evidence for themselves:

I deal with every issue from the credibility of Alan Goodman, Graves non-existent medical research experience, the fallacies of Scott MacEachern, and Egalitarian Jays regurgitation of Lewontins Fallacy. I also address the incorrect statements of Lieberman not to mention some Jays ramblings.

I invite all of you to visit the above thread link and judge the merits of the debate on your own.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: Frank tried to discredit Nisbett based on his citation of a study which turned out to be fraudulent and insisted this destroyed his credibility even though Nisbett admitted to be unaware at the time that the study was a fraud. This is a case of special pleading since Frank is still supportive of Rushton despite his blatantly dishonest research practices.

FRANK: EgalitarianJay is the king of special pleads. NIsbett used a study in his book called the “Milwaukee Project.” The “Milwaukee Project’s” founder was arrested and it turned out the project’s existence could not be verified.

However, what Jay omits to mention is that Nisbett merely said if he knew these facts about Heber he would not have included the study in his book. Nisbett goes on though to say that study supported other studies and that Heber was not the only person involved with the project.

In other words, Nisbett defended the project even after he learned that it was not reputable to say the least.

If you want to see Jay have his sources picked apart, please visit the above thread. If you want to see the human embodiment of hypocrisy, see EgalitarianJay in action at the above thread linked.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Yes go ahead and read the thread. Draw your own conclusions. Frank however can not by trusted. This guy is a lunatic who has a thread running on that board where he relentlessly personally attacks me. That’s the whole purpose of the thread, to heckle me.

Regarding Nisbett what Nisbett defended was not the reliability of the source but the credibility of the research that source supported. Frank twists that fact into claiming Nisbett is defending a fraudulent study.

Ofcourse Frank accuses me of special pleading but has nothing to say about the multitude of times Rushton has dishonestly distorted the research of others and manipulated data which is pointed out by multiple scholars and mentioned to Rushton to his face by Graves in their debate.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

1) Frank simply forfeited the debate. Egalitarian Jay has this petty obsession with winning all debates and arguments. He has no actual interest in truth but merely winning arguments against those he deems “racist.” The real sad part is a rational person with any sense of discriminating logic would have realized that this “official” defeat was superficial and hardly worth bragging about in any sense. However, if doing so gives Egalitarian Jays life some meaning, let him rejoice.

2) I had my account banned simply to prove the point that I was leaving and gone. The Phora has simply become a waste of time. The “fit of rage” accusation is a projection. It was a Egalitarian Jay who attacked me via the reputation system, sent me pornography and attacked me for what other posters did to him.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Anyone with any sense knows that you requested your banning in a fit of rage. You blew up and wrote hateful and dehumanizing comments towards me showing that you are every bit as racist as the typical Phora, Stormfront or VNN poster.

I sent you 3 pornographic images in retaliation for your attempts at character assassination which was a last straw in a long line of harassment and malicious personal attacks by you and other posters. I sent it because I knew imagery of interracial sex greatly offends racists. One good turn deserves another.

The punishment fit the crime.

If you weren’t obsessed with winning arguments Frank you would not have spent over 350 posts trying to debate me which is nearly equivalent to making one comment everyday for an entire year. If you were not obsessed you would not create an entire thread centered around flaming me. You would not ban yourself in a fit of rage (if The Phora bored you you could have just left without the childish ban request) and you would not revert to damage control like you are doing now.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: I sent you 3 pornographic images in retaliation for your attempts at character assassination which was a last straw in a long line of harassment and malicious personal attacks by you and other posters. I sent it because I knew imagery of interracial sex greatly offends racists. One good turn deserves another.

FRANK: To have your character assassinated you have to actually have character Jay. Your “character” was shot when you received a one month ban for the proliferation of pornography to forum members.

You also made it clear at the time you sent those images to me that your motives were retaliation for the bullying you received from other forum “racists.” This character assassination angle only came into play when you had 7 days to think of an excuse in a feeble attempt to save your reputation.

You accuse me of damage control…sheesh.

EGALITARIAN JAY: If you weren’t obsessed with winning arguments Frank you would not have spent over 350 posts trying to debate me which is nearly equivalent to making one comment everyday for an entire year.

FRANK: You should be thankful that I was willing to debate you. The rest of that forum views you as a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur.

In addition, we had this conversation previously While I posted on that one forum frequently. You are the one who posts on nearly a dozen other forums including Youtube. You post on everything from Afrocentric to martial arts to beer barrel forums.

The name “Egalitarian Jay” is smeared all over the internet. Hell, even when I look for Youtube videos on Rushton, I find your name more than I do his…or at least it is pretty close near the top.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

You are still incapable of honesty. I made it clear to you that your comment was the last straw. You can judge me all you want but the racists who spammed me with hateful neg rep comments are scum and I treated them like the scum they are. You lot are not innocent children whom it would be appalling to send pornography to.

You are grown men posting on the internet and acting like idiots. You deserve to be treated like idiots.

It doesn’t matter where else I post. I’m a grown man I can do whatever I want. It is a complete joke for you to make any complaints about my behavior considering the way you act. I do not care what some racists on the internet think of me. You don’t seem to understand that. To me you guys are nothing but racists and racists are not people I consider to be worthy of respect.

I laugh at people like you who try to judge me. What do you do? You throw a temper tantrum and in a fit of rage request that you be banned from a forum.

You say that when you search for Rushton some of my videos come near the top on Youtube? Good! That’s the idea. I want my videos near the top of those Youtube searches because that racist quack should be exposed for what he is.

Again I achieved my goal with this debate. You got yourself banned from the only forum you claim to post on. Even your supporters on The Phora are questioning the wisdom of your actions and expressing disappointment with you.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: You are still incapable of honesty. I made it clear to you that your comment was the last straw. You can judge me all you want but the racists who spammed me with hateful neg rep comments are scum and I treated them like the scum they are. You lot are not innocent children whom it would be appalling to send pornography to.

You said nothing about “character assassination” not that you have any character to assassinate mind you. Your complaints were centered around the reputation points you received from other posters. This was the sole example of abuse you offered to justify your actions.

EGALITARIAN JAY: You are grown men posting on the internet and acting like idiots. You deserve to be treated like idiots.

FRANK: This is a rich criticism coming from a person who just created a childish picture of my “tombstone.” You accuse me of childish behaviour when you send pornography in a fit of rage and create childish little cartoon images to mock people you do not like…

The real sad part is you are no better than the people you mock and insult.

EGALITARIAN JAY: Again I achieved my goal with this debate. You got yourself banned from the only forum you claim to post on. Even your supporters on The Phora are questioning the wisdom of your actions and expressing disappointment with you.

FRANK: What you have done is prove to the masses that you are moral fraud. You are the equivalent of the televangelist who condemns other people for their sins and then turns around and beds his sisters husband.

You have the nerve to pass judgement like a religious fanatic arguing that racists are so evil that they should not be taken seriously when you are by the far the far greater evil. You are the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

The masses? Ha! What masses? No one cares about our stupid flame war that you started Frank. You think you have exposed me as some type of fraud but I’ve never claimed to be above sticking it to Net-Nazis like yourself.

I didn’t do anything evil. Most people would think sending interracial porn to racists is funny. Infact that is the response I got on Egyptsearch. Harjit has congratulated me via email for making a fool out of you as well. I not only find nothing immoral about subjecting you and the other Phora racists to porn I find it hilarious. You should read the rest of the jokes I made about you after you were banned.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Frank: You said nothing about “character assassination” not that you have any character to assassinate mind you.

EgalitarianJay: I clearly said….

“I’ve had enough of this shit. I’ve had enough of the flaming both in rep comments and on the board mostly from YOU. You’re just as bad as they are you just don’t use racial slurs. When someone says something you don’t like you maliciously personally attacked them.”

Did you forget that part? You are under some delusion that I am bothered by the level of debate you bring Frank but I have faced plenty of tough debaters on the internet and the discussions didn’t devolve into flame wars. They do with you because you are prone to personally attack opponents in malicious ways. Unless you lack reading comprehension you can clearly see that I rationalized the porn PM as a reaction to your flaming. Again I included the racist reps because I saw your comment as a last straw.

Honestly I think you deserved worse than 3 images. I would force you to watch a whole movie if I could.

Frank: Hell, even when I look for Youtube videos on Rushton, I find your name more than I do his…or at least it is pretty close near the top.

EgalitarianJay: This comment is so stupid it needs to be revisited. Don’t you know that the Rushton-Graves video is split into multiple parts? When you search for Rushton you are getting several parts of the same video which were all uploaded by me. And the fact that they are near the top is only a compliment to me because it shows that the video is gaining exposure which was my goal.

Frank, the Rushton-Graves video I uploaded has been viewed by thousands of people. It actually has more views than a lecture by Rushton uploaded around the same time. On Youtube you can monitor the stats for your video. My video has been linked around the internet on various websites, blogs and message boards.

People comment on the video every single day. Mostly angry racists but also Egalitarians who are happy to see Rushton refuted. It is a part of internet conversation on Race & IQ. Other Youtubers have talked about Graves and my video in their own videos.
Another Egalitarian PM’d me and asked if he could upload my video as one file so now it is available without splits.

Overall I would say that my contribution to this topic has been an overwhelming success. The debates on ThePhora, which is an obscure message board, are a minor part of my involvement with this debate. You want to boast that you destroyed my internet reputation but most people who encounter my info will not even be aware of you nor care about our silly flame war.

Besides I have used the name EgalitarianJay on other boards and spammed racists with interracial porn before. If they are still on the internet look up my ArguewithEveryone debates.

You call me a moral fraud but I’m just a normal guy who does not like racism and will put racists in their place when I see fit to do so.

@Egalitarianjay: I disagree with most of your positions but greatly appreciate your contribution to get discussions going, especially youtube videos etc.

@Frank: I would love you to write a post here, focusing on human stupidity interest:

What are the strategies that EJ, but especially famous people like Nisbett, Graves, politically correct press, politicians do to distract from obvious scientific facts. Methods of distraction and disinformation. That is really the interest of Human-Stupidity. We can talk via email.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Yes Admin,

I really would like to get away from the immature personal quarreling. Frank will probably be a valuable asset to you if your goal is to promote the positions of racialists as he has done a lot of research for his side.

I’ve made my position clear. This research is not scientific and socially harmful. You all have a right to your opinion and people like me will keep you on your toes by providing the opposing view.

For me this isn’t about the Race & IQ debate it’s always been about combating racism, not only the scientific myths promoted by racists but the immoral world view of racism which is why on my Youtube channel you will find videos that have nothing to do with IQ but instead address the greater issue which is the effect that racial bigotry has had and continues to have on society.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

ADMIN: @Frank: I would love you to write a post here, focusing on human stupidity interest:

What are the strategies that EJ, but especially famous people like Nisbett, Graves, politically correct press, politicians do to distract from obvious scientific facts. Methods of distraction and disinformation. That is really the interest of Human-Stupidity. We can talk via email.

FRANK: Largely, the arguments of anti-racists are based on Lewontins-Fallacy:

The overlying position of numerous anti-racists is that variation omits classification. Anti-racists think in absolutes. Robert Lindsay offers the following analysis of the Lewontin position that is championed by most anti-racists:

“According to… (Lewontin’s) fallacy, most genetic variation is within groups and not between groups. 85% is within any given group, and only 15% is between the average of any one group with any other.

Why this is a fallacy can be easily shown. For instance, within Whites, IQ’s in a group of 1000 Whites have IQ’s ranging from 148 to 68 or so. There are 80 points variation within the group.

Now let us look at the average of 1000 Whites versus the average of 1000 Blacks. The 1000 Whites have an average IQ of 103. The 1000 Blacks have an average IQ of 89.8. There are 13.2 points variation between the averages of each group.

According to Lewontin’s Fallacy, the 13.2 point differences between Blacks and Whites is inconsequential to meaningless, since the difference within Whites ranges from geniuses to idiots! Yet that difference has real meaningful consequences at many levels, particularly societal and sociological but also political.”

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Richard Lewontin’s research on within and between group genetic variation of human populations has nothing to do with the meaningfulness of IQ distributions so this example is is rather strange. Admin I recommend you read Lewontin’s review of Rushton’s book to get your own perspective on what he actually thinks are the fallacies of Rushton’s theory.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: Richard Lewontin’s research on within and between group genetic variation of human populations has nothing to do with the meaningfulness of IQ distributions so this example is is rather strange. Admin I recommend you read Lewontin’s review of Rushton’s book to get your own perspective on what he actually thinks are the fallacies of Rushton’s theory.

FRANK: Robert Lindsay was offering an example of how Lewontins-fallacy is a ridiculous basis for a rational argument.

We know for example that Chimpanzee sub-species have more genetic variation that all of humanity.

Lewontins fallacy should not permit such a thing due to the massive genetic diversity that exists in Chimps, diversity that exceeds the entire genetic diversity of the human species.

Second, it is not uncommon for people to apply the Lewontin standard to the issue of IQ and race. It is not uncommon for “anti-racists” to point out anomalies in IQ test scores as evidence against average IQ collective rankings. You have done this yourself by asking me to explain “intelligent blacks.” You have done so by asking me to explain why there are variations in native indian groups.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Lewton’s argument was that zoological taxonomic classification of populations into subspecies was based on the amount of genetic differentiation between populations. Because there is much more genetic differentiation within geographic populations than between them subdividing human populations based on geographic ancestry is not justifiable because the major genetic differentiation of our species is not between those types of groups.

The issue for Lewontin was with the claim of major genetic divisions between populations. This type of genetic variation meant there there were no clear cut genetic boundaries of evolutionary significance and that people from one geographic group were no more genetically divergent from other groups than they were from each other.

Edwards called this a fallacy because with enough genetic polymorphisms sampled you could easily identify an individual from one geographic population from another with near 100% accuracy therefore these divisions based on continental ancestry had taxonomic significance. His argument however is a strawman because while it’s perfectly true that when sampling enough non-coding genes that are ancestry informative you can identify individuals from regionally distinct populations (e.g. an Englishmen from a German or a Korean from a Japanese) the issue is with how divergent people from certain populations are not whether or not you can identify one from another based on genetics.

As far as “intelligent blacks” and Native American groups are concerned Frank as I recall I asked a poster how Rushton’s evolutionary theories could explain a large number of intelligent Blacks.

For instance how can African immigrants outperform Asian-Americans and White Americans academically if
Africans are on average significantly cognitively deficient. Even if you talk about averages there should be enough African immigrants to make this possible and the claim that they are all super geniuses and a rare anomaly among Africans doesn’t hold because they would be getting the very best jobs in the country. They are only doing above average academically, plus there is good reason to believe the true intellectual elite stay in Africa since they can afford a higher standard of living at the top of Africa’s social class within their respective country rather than immigrate elsewhere.

That has nothing to do with Lewontin’s arguments.

My point about Native Americans is the simply fact that if the ancestors of modern Native Americans traveled across the Bering Strait from Northeast Asia their ancestors would have underwent the exact same selection pressure, evolving the allegedly, large intelligent brains of modern Northeast Asians. Yet Native Americans did not have cultures on par with ancient China or feudal Japan and they have lower average IQs than Whites today.

Even Rushton admits he doesn’t have an explanation for this. He also doesn’t have an explanation for the lower IQs and current standard of living for Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia and the Philippines whose ancestors came from mainland Asia and should have experienced the same selection pressure that produces high intelligence. Scientists would call these contradictions which discredit the cold winter theory making claims based on this theory bogus.

Ofcourse when you consider the fact that r/K selection theory itself was discredited and Rushton got the theory backwards there is absolutely no reason to take these theories seriously at all. It’s obviously pseudoscience.

I would argue Admin that instead of dismissing the arguments against racialism as a distraction from scientific facts that you think critically about the arguments being made by racialists because they have been demonstrated to be bogus.

I’ve argued this point over and over with Frank and others though so I’m going to leave it alone for now. I have more interesting videos on my Youtube channel including the rest of Race: The Power of an Illusion series.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: Lewton’s argument was that zoological taxonomic classification of populations into subspecies was based on the amount of genetic differentiation between populations. Because there is much more genetic differentiation within geographic populations than between them subdividing human populations based on geographic ancestry is not justifiable because the major genetic differentiation of our species is not between those types of groups.

FRANK: The only problem with this is that zoological classification is not based on mere genetic similarity vs variations but the collective expression of the genes in question.

As Logician Neven Sesardić explains:

“Since the publication of Richard Lewontin’s widely cited article (Lewontin 1972), it has been a matter of scientiﬁc consensus that a much smaller part of the total human
genetic variation is between the races than within the races. Lewontin estimated the inter-racial variation comprises only about 7% of the total genetic variation in the human species.

Some philosophers think that this numerical fact alone shows that the biological concept of subspecies (or race) is inapplicable to humans (e.g., Machery and Faucher 2005, 1208–1209; Richardson 2000, 847). Robin Andreasen
also uses the relatively small between-group genetic variation to argue that ‘‘if we focus on the synchronic question—is there any justiﬁcation for dividing current
populations into races—the answer may very well be ‘no’’’ (Andreasen 1998, 215, cf. 2000, S663; Mallon 2006, 529). In a similar vein, Ned Block tries to undermine the importance of race by mentioning that only about 7% of all human genetic variation lies between the major races (Block 1995, 112, 115). All these philosophers seem to consider the anti-race import of that low percentage ﬁgure
so cogent and straightforward that they do not even deem it necessary to clarify how it is supposed to establish their conclusion. Yet their reasoning is fallacious: the mere fact that the between-group genetic variation is many times smaller than the within-group variation does not actually preclude racial categorization from making a lot of genetic sense.

To think otherwise is to commit a statistical mistake that has recently been labeled ‘‘Lewontin’s fallacy’’ (see Edwards 2003). An argument that is due to Lewontin and that has been uncritically accepted by almost all philosophers is that
racial classiﬁcation is of virtually no genetic or biological signiﬁcance just because the genetic differences between the races on a number of arbitrarily selected loci are
typically found to be swamped by the corresponding within-race differences. But as Edwards has shown, Lewontin completely ignored the aggregation effect of these
inter-group differences in allele frequencies on different loci, which could (and arguably does) support a racial taxonomy—without a need for a very big average
variation between the races on a locus-by-locus basis. Even with Lewontin’s condition satisﬁed (i.e., the within-group variation being much larger than the between-group variation), a clear group structure can still emerge on the basis of these aggregate properties of populations. It should be emphasized that Lewontin’s fallacy was exposed long before Edwards’ article in 2003. An especially clear
explanation is given in Mitton (1977) and (1978), the articles that somehow missed the attention of most scholars, including Edwards himself (personal communication)

{snip}

Returning to the topic of human genetic variation, we are now in a better position to diagnose the source of Lewontin’s fallacy. The ﬁgure of only 7–10% of total genetic variation belonging to the variation between the races actually refers to the inter-racial portion of variation that is averaged over the separate contributions of a number of individual genetic indicators that were sampled in different studies. In
other words, this information is completely restricted to an iterated single-dimensionpoint-of-view. Any structure that might exist at the level of the aggregation of the inter-group genetic differences is absolutely invisible from that essentially one dimensional perspective.

Lewontin’s univariate approach to the conceptualization of race is particularly clear when he asks: ‘‘How much difference in the frequencies of A, B, AB, and O
blood groups does one require before deciding that it is large enough to declare two local populations are in separate ‘races’?’’ (Lewontin 1987, 2000)

This is the wrong question completely. Races are not distinguished from one another by some specially big difference of allelic frequencies in one trait, but rather by a
combination of a number of small or moderate differences in many traits. That is, e pluribus, not ex uno.
Here is another way of explaining Lewontin’s fallacy, by using an analogy with two biased coins. Assume that coin 1 is slightly biased toward heads, with its p(H) = 0.6, whereas coin 2 is biased in the opposite direction, with its p(H) = 0.4. If one of the two coins is randomly chosen and then ﬂipped, observing the outcome (heads or tails) will not help us much in guessing which of these two coins was
actually ﬂipped. On average, our best guess (that it was the coin with the bias toward the observed outcome) will be correct only slightly above the chance level of
0.5. To be precise, our success rate with this strategy will be 60%.

But with the increasing number of tosses of the selected coin, our predictive ability will become better and better. Consider the situation in Table 1 that represents 11 ﬂips of the unknown coin, which in every trial has the same probability of heads (either 0.6 or 0.4)

EGALITARIAN JAY: Even Rushton admits he doesn’t have an explanation for this. He also doesn’t have an explanation for the lower IQs and current standard of living for Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia and the Philippines whose ancestors came from mainland Asia and should have experienced the same selection pressure that produces high intelligence. Scientists would call these contradictions which discredit the cold winter theory making claims based on this theory bogus.

FRANK: The first issue is that Rushton explained that there were variations, he previously quoted Professor Richard Lynn:

4. Race Differences in Winter Temperatures, Brain Size, and IQ

The evolution of larger brain size to accommodate greater intelligence in the races that occupied the colder environments is shown in Table 16.2. Column 2 gives the races ranked by the severity of the winter temperatures to which they were exposed. Column 3 gives present-day coldest winter monthly temperatures taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica World Atlas and are averages of the regions inhabited by the races. Column 3 gives the coldest winter monthly temperatures during the main Wurm glaciation, which lasted between approximately 28,000 and 10,000 years ago and during which winter temperatures fell by about 5 degrees centigrade in the northern hemisphere but not in the southern hemisphere (Roberts, 1989; Foley, 1987). Column 4 gives average brain sizes taken from Table 16.1. It is apparent that there is a general correspondence between coldest winter monthly temperatures and brain sizes. For the first six races listed, brain sizes decrease with less severely cold winter monthly temperatures. However, in the remaining four races this linear trend becomes irregular. The Africans inhabit a warmer zone than the Bushmen but have larger brain size. The Australian Aborigines continue the trend with a warmer zone and lower brain size. However, the Southeast Asians and the Pacific Islanders in tropical and sub-tropical zones have larger brain sizes than the South Asians and North Africans, the Bushmen, the Africans, and the Australian Aborigines.

Column 5 gives the IQs of the races. Here too it is apparent that there is a general correspondence between the IQs and the coldest winter monthly temperatures and brain sizes, but once again there are anomalies. First, the Arctic Peoples inhabit the coldest zone and have the largest brain size, but their IQ is only 91. Second, the Bushmen have the second smallest brain size (l,270cc) but the lowest IQ (54), while the Australian Aborigines have the smallest brain size (1225cc) but a slightly higher IQ (62) than the Bushmen. Apart from these anomalies there is a perfect correspondence between race differences in brain size and IQ.

To explain these anomalies we have to consider the genetical principles involved in the evolution of the race differences in intelligence. This question is taken up in Section 8.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: Edwards called this a fallacy because with enough genetic polymorphisms sampled you could easily identify an individual from one geographic population from another with near 100% accuracy therefore these divisions based on continental ancestry had taxonomic significance. His argument however is a strawman because while it’s perfectly true that when sampling enough non-coding genes that are ancestry informative you can identify individuals from regionally distinct populations (e.g. an Englishmen from a German or a Korean from a Japanese) the issue is with how divergent people from certain populations are not whether or not you can identify one from another based on genetics.

FRANK: Edwards referred to Lewontins calculation as a fallacy based on the following:

“These conclusions are based on the old statistical fallacy
of analysing data on the assumption that it contains no
information beyond that revealed on a locus-by-locus analysis, and then drawing conclusions solely on the results of such an analysis. The ‘taxonomic significance’ of genetic data in fact often arises from correlations amongst the different loci, for it is these that may contain the information which enables a stable classification to be uncovered.

Cavalli-Sforza and Piazza (6) coined the word ‘treeness’ to
describe the extent to which a tree-like structure was hidden amongst the correlations in gene-frequency data.

Lewontin’s superficial analysis ignores this aspect of the structure of the data and leads inevitably to the conclusion that the data do not possess such structure. The argument is circular. A contrasting analysis to Lewontin’s, using very similar data, was presented by Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. (7)

Making no prior assumptions about the form of the tree, they derived a convincing evolutionary tree for the 15 populations that they studied. Lewontin, (2,5) though he participated in the Congress, did not refer to this analysis.

The statistical problem has been understood at least since
the discussions surrounding Pearson’s ‘coefficient of racial
likeness’(8) in the 1920s. It is mentioned in all editions of
Fisher’s Statistical Methods for Research Workers (1)
from 1925 (quoted above). A useful review is that by Gower
(9) in a 1972 conference volume The Assessment of Population Affinities in Man. As he pointed out, ‘‘. . . the human mind distinguishes between different groups because there are correlated characters within the postulated groups.’

The original discussions involved anthropometric data, but
the fallacy may equally be exposed using modern genetic
terminology. Consider two haploid populations each of size n. In population 1 the frequency of a gene, say ‘þ’ as opposed to‘’, at a single diallelic locus is p and in population 2 it is q, where p þ q ¼1. (The symmetry is deliberate.) Each population manifests simple binomial variability, and the overallvariability is augmented by the difference in the means.

The natural way to analyse this variability is the analysis of
variance, from which it will be found that the ratio of the
within-population sum of squares to the total sum of squares is simply 4pq. Taking p ¼ 0.3 and q ¼ 0.7, this ratio is 0.84; 84% of the variability is within-population, corresponding closely to Lewontin’s figure. The probability of misclassifying an individual based on his gene is p, in this case 0.3. The genes at a single locus are hardly informative about the population to which their bearer belong.

Now suppose there are k similar loci, all with gene frequency p in population 1 and q in population 2. The ratio
of the within-to-total variability is still 84% at each locus. The total number of ‘þ’ genes in an individual will be binomial with mean kp in population 1 and kq in population 2, with variance kpq in both cases. Continuing with the former gene frequencies and taking k ¼ 100 loci (say), the mean numbers are 30 and 70 respectively, with variances 21 and thus standard deviations of 4.58.

With a difference between the means of 40 and a common standard deviation of less than 4.6, there is virtually no overlap between the distributions, and the probability of misclassification is infinitesimal, simply on the basis of counting the number of ‘þ’ genes. Fig. 1 shows how
the probability falls off for up to 20 loci.

One way of looking at this result is to appreciate that the
total number of ‘þ’ genes is like the first principal component in a principal component analysis (Box 1). For this component the between-population sum of squares is very much greater than the within-population sum of squares. For the other components the reverse will hold, so that overall the between population sum of squares is only a small proportion (in this example 16%) of the total.

But this must not beguile one into thinking that the two populations are not separable, which they clearly are…”

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 00

@EgalitarianJay: if the theory does not explain something, this still does not change the validity of the observed and measured data. Like the low American Indian IQ. And the low IQ, low economic success and high crime rate of blacks everywhere.
==========

Now the only alleged DATA that contradicts Rushton is the story about black immigrant students being extremely successful and intelligent at elite Universities.

Now if that data were true and not a highly selected elite group

a) it would be cited everywhere, day and night

b) it would give cues as to how to make black societies intelligent, successful and rich. And I don’t think Rushton loves black misery. He sure would be happy if the key to this secret could be found.

So maybe we could discuss the literature on that anomaly of extremely successful black immigrant students. Plus the replies by Rushton and others. I suppose that there is some fallacy, like selection of the most intelligent elite in Africa, or affirmative action, ……

Still, this is a little off topic to our running abilities of pygmies and sausage dogs …

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Admin,

The way science works is that you make an effort to test your hypotheses and develop new theories when new, valid data refutes old theories. If your theory is wrong it is wrong. You don’t make excuses for data that does not fit your theory.

Science:

1. Gather facts.
2. Come up with a hypothesis to make sense of them.
3. Test the hypothesis.

Pseudoscience:

1. Come up with the desired conclusion.
2. Gather facts that support the conclusion.
3. Find excuses for the facts that do not fit.

Maybe you want to see a brighter future for Blacks, Admin, but Rusthon does not. All he cares about is proving that there are racial differences which can be ranked in hierarchical fashion. That is why when his evolutionary theory was discredited he did not attempt to challenge the evidence which refuted it but instead keeps promoting it as is.

That’s why when it was shown that improvement in environment is improving test scores of Black Americans Rushton went into straight denial mode in order to protect his theory of a genetic component to IQ and Socioeconomic gaps.

Here are the countries with the highest murder rates per capita in the world:

1. Turkey

2. Belarus

3. Lithuania

4. Albania

5. Estonia

6. Ukraine

7. Turkmenistan

8. Latvia

9. Croatia

10. Romania

Notice how many Eastern European countries are on that list. Some of these countries are so White that it is preposterous to blame any minority groups within the countries for the crime rates. According to racialist theory most of these countries should be majority Black if Blacks are genetically more prone to violent crime.

Here are the countries with the most rapes per capita:

1. Lesotho

2. New Zealand

3. Belgium

4. Iceland

5. Norway

6. Israel

7. Finland

8. Chile

9. Mongolia

10. Ireland

Quite a diverse crowd. There’s even an Asian country on there. And again the list is not dominated by countries whose residents by majority are of African descent. According to racialist theory it should be since Blacks have less sexual restraint than other races.

Science would suggest that if the data contradicts the hypothesis then the hypothesis is false. Rushton fixates only on countries with like the USA and the United Kingdom where Blacks are a minority and disproportionately poor to draw conclusions from crime statistics.

I think crime statistics in general are an unreliable way to draw conclusions about the general behavior of populations because criminals do not represent the average person. You could make a better argument for a society being generally more benevolent than others based on cultural history. When you appeal to this standard the claim that Europeans and Asians are genetically more prone to good behavior than Africans becomes less credible when you consider historical atrocities committed by these groups.

That includes various genocides and hostile acts by people of European descent such as the chattel slavery of Africans, the Holocaust and mass murder of Native Americans under the philosophy of Manifest Destiny. Or the atrocities committed by people of Asian descent such as the torture and mass murder of people under Communist China led by Mao Zedong as well as the mass rapes and torture by Japanese soldiers during World War II on their Asian neighbors.

Here we have far more people of one ethnic group behaving badly as a collective, far more than the minority of civilian criminals who commit crimes annually. Scientists would look at this and conclude that Europeans and Asians are simply not as benevolent and some assume. Propagandists make excuses for these atrocities.

When you take all of this in context the world is simply not as simple as racial theorists would like to claim it is e.g. blaming genetics when it suits them. I don’t doubt that there is a genetic component to some mental illnesses but serious mental illness occurs in people who represent a small fraction of the population not a large number of people spread unevenly across different regions.

Environmental factors easily explain some of the trends that we do observe.

AB says:

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

I agree with almost everything that he says and I appreciate that he is exposing the stupidity that lies within racism.

The only thing that I consider even more stupid than racism is the attempt in media to censor racism. I don’t believe in censorship of any kind. People should discuss this publicly so that the common-sense notion of races can be broken.

Like I said before, there is no need for any kind of classification into groups as long as I have the individual genetic profile and as long as I have the individual performance-chart..

Frank says:

AB: Like I said before, there is no need for any kind of classification into groups as long as I have the individual genetic profile and as long as I have the individual performance-chart..

FRANK: So you believe there is no need for classification? You do know that medical and forensic science would be shot to hell if we took your advice? Should we also omit classifications such as age and gender as well in these fields?

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Rubbish! If the full individual genetic and medical profile is available, there is no need for extra racial or gender information in medicine.

If the genetic profile is available, then gender could be figured out automatically.
Unlike gender though, which depends on the Y chromosome, there are no specific genes that discretely determines “race”; but once again, the individual genetic profile and medical reports should be more than enough.

Rather than age, which is only a number, the actual condition of the person is far more important.
Physical age =/= Biological age.

Within Africa there is more genetic variation than the rest of the world combined. So, if you are a doctor and trying to treat a patient with the sole information that he is “black” then you are not much better than a witch doctor. But if you have the full genetic and medical profile, then you hardly bother asking anything else.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Thank you, Frank. I was requesting the sources of the above statistics too.

If Norway has higher rape rates then South Africa, Kenya, or Rwanda, then I suspect it has to do with the definition of rape (I strongly doubt that any woman in Kenya will get anywhere with accusations of 5 second rapes, consented-but-was-tipsy-rape, broken condom rape etc)..

Also I read that ALL forcible rape-rapes in Norway in the last years had immigrant culprits. Anyone has the citation handy?

One might read at Lynn’s books, that even within countries crime, poverty have the same gradient as skin color. I believe Lynn has good statistics.

I am also still waiting for the analysis of the genius level students from Africa, @egalitarianjay.

Most of Africa is grey, it probably means they are so backward that there are no statistics.

Russian Federation is probably an outlier, due to serious mafia problems.

The U.S. Department of Justice compiles statistics on crime by race, but only between and among people categorized as black or white. In 2005 there were 111,490 white and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault. In 2005, out of the 111,490 cases involving white victims, 44.5% had white offenders and 33.6% had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 100% black offenders, numbers of white offenders were estimated to be negligible.[24] There were 194,270 white and 17,920 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2006. However, the report does give a note that for the instances of white-on-black rape the statistic is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.[25] According to the RAINN about 3.3% of rapes in the US are black-on-white and 3.4% are white-on-black.[26]

admin says:

Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe and one of the highest in the world. According to a 2009 study, there were 46 incidents of rape per 100,000 residents. This figure is double as many as in the UK which reports 23 cases, and four times that of the other Nordic countries, Germany and France. The figure is up to 20 times the figure for certain countries in southern and eastern Europe.[38]

According to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, the high numbers are explained by a broader legal definiton of rape than in other countries, and an effort to register all suspected and repeated rapes. A comparison based on victim surveys places Sweden at an average level among European nations.[39]

==================
It is estimated that a woman born in South Africa has a greater chance of being raped than learning how to read.[45] One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year.[46]

South Africa has some of the highest incidences of child and baby rape in the world.[47] In a related survey conducted among 1,500 schoolchildren in the Soweto township, a quarter of all the boys interviewed said that ‘jackrolling’, a term for gang rape, was fun.[46] More than 25% of a sample of 1,738 South African men from the KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape Provinces admitted when anonymously questioned to raping someone; of those, nearly half said they had raped more than one person, according to a non-peer reviewed policy brief issued by the Medical Research Council (MRC).[48] Several news publications extrapolated these results to the rest of the South African population.[49][50][51] The humanitarian news organization IRIN claims that an estimated 500,000 rapes are committed annually in South Africa, but does not provide a source for this figure.[51]
=============

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

My source is Nationmaster as well as Comparative Criminology (on the African and Caribbean statistics). There would be no point to hide sources since this can easily be looked up. We’re typing on a blog so I see no point to go into too much detail but if you guys want sources they can be given.

My point stands on the matter. In fact the subjectivity of crime and sexual behavior definitions is a point Graves brought up in his presentation at John Jay College. There is no universal standard for which to compile these statistics. When you go country by country, regardless of the source the pattern does not fit Rushton’s 3 race hierarchy.

As I pointed out before because criminals do not represent the average person crime statistics are not a reliable way to judge a populations general behavior in the first place.

There are many more problems with using this type of data to support the notion of life history variation between races and remember that while Rushton believes the strength of his argument is with the data he has gone the route of advancing an evolutionary genetic rationale to explain the data which was thoroughly discredited as Graves explains:

Rushton’s memory of my critique is quite limited. First, it began with an evaluation of the efficacy of r- and K- theory in general. Professional life-history evolutionists (of which I am, and he is not) no longer regard r- and K- theory as a useful research paradigm. This dismantling occurred due to a series of experiments that tested the predictions of r- and K-theory and showed that they did not hold up in a wide variety of species. Second, I demonstrated that Rushton misapplied r- and K- theory; indeed by MacArthur and Wilson (the originators of r- and K-theory) Africans would be K-selected and Europeans and East Asians (r-selected); just the opposite of what Rushton claimed. Third, I demonstrated that much of the data he cited to make his case was flawed either in collection or source; particularly data like “social organization” and “crime”. Thus at three levels his r- and K-theory approach to human life history variation fails. So I challenge the notion his 3-way spectrum is real; secondly even if it were real, he has not presented an evolutionary theory that could explain it; and third that environmental differences could easily explain much of what he reports.

——————————–

Admin what I said about the students from Africa is that there is no reason to assume they are all high level geniuses rather than a group of people with above average intelligence who have a culture that teachers good study habits and hard work ethic. I have interacted with plenty of African immigrants in school and the workforce.

They don’t strike me as geniuses just hardworking, normal, decent people for the most part. There aren’t any sources that I know of who have related this to Race & IQ Admin because the racial hereditarians ignore this fact.

There are however several sources who call African immigrants in the USA a model minority, albeit an invisible one.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Actually, the dog breed analogy is a bit of fallacy in itself.
First of all, dogs are a bit of an exception. Most animals don’t have breeds which are nearly as diverse as dog breeds. Just because they are the same species doesn’t mean they are genetically very close.

Now add to that that dogs have been bred on purpose to amplify certain traits whereas humans have bred randomly(for the most part).
The genetic difference between two average humans is 1 base pair in 1300.
If you add all that,perhaps a better and more accurate comparison will be doing a race within a particular breed like grey-hound.
At the very best, you can argue about racing between two different breeds of spaniels, but a race between a sausage-dog and a grey-hound is not even remotely what the situation is like with races.

In fact, chimps in the same jungle show more genetic variation than all of human beings combined. Why not race these chimps? That seems much more logical than racing two completely different dog-breeds.

Human beings are so close genetically because we came very close to extinction on two separate occasions and all our close cousins like neanderthals are extinct.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: Actually, the dog breed analogy is a bit of fallacy in itself. First of all, dogs are a bit of an exception. Most animals don’t have breeds which are nearly as diverse as dog breeds. Just because they are the same species doesn’t mean they are genetically very close.

FRANK: They are not an exception. a segment of western chimps possess the most genetic variation ever measured. They were clearly closer to chimps as they were chimps but actually could be clustered with humans on certain scales due to the vast variation.

As Michael Rienzi explains:

“Although it is true that human populations share roughly 99.9 percent of their genes, it is also true that humans share over 98 percent of their genes with chimpanzees, and a very high amount with animals like mice and dogs. Many of these genes produce basic body structures all mammals have in common; differences between organisms are caused by very small genetic differences.

Men and women are 99.998 percent identical but no one suggests that men and women are identical.

Current evidence suggests that all the sex differences between men and women are the result of just one genetic difference—one gene (the Testes Determining Factor) out of an estimated 50,000-100,000! This would mean men and women are 99.998 to 99.999 percent genetically identical, yet no one suggests that sex is a mere “social construct.” In like manner, the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees, which no one denies, can be described as 12 to 20 times the genetic differences between racial groups.

Tiny genetic differences can have huge phenotypic consequences because genes are ordered in a hierarchical fashion. Some genes are “master genes,” and control the expression of a number of other genes, each of which may further control several other genes. Also, the expression of each gene is controlled by regions called “promoters” and “enhancers,” usually located in front of the functional part of the gene. A small change in the promoter region of gene “X” can alter its expression. X may control genes A, B, C, D, E, F. Gene A in turn may control its own set of genes. Even if all of the genes other than “X” are identical between two groups, the one difference in “X” would be sufficient to produce large group differences.

It is not the quantity of genetic difference that is important, but the nature of the differences: which genes are different, in what ways they differ, and the consequences of these differences. Breeds of dogs are analogous to human races. It is likely that different breeds are as close genetically as different races of humans, but there is no doubt that these subtle variations result in significant differences in appearance, intelligence, and behavior.

It is also worth considering that a butterfly and the caterpillar from which it developed are 100 percent genetically identical! The genes do not change; the enormous differences between caterpillar and butterfly result from the activation of different genes at different times. This should give some pause to those who think a 0.1 percent difference in tens of thousands of human genes “makes no difference.”

{snip}

The flaw in this argument is the same as in the “99.9 percent argument,” in that it stresses quantity—genetic “bean counting”—rather than the importance of genetic differences and their consequences. Indeed, there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups, but if this variation does not influence the expression of important genes, it is not of much consequence. There is considerable genetic variation between siblings and between parents and children, but this does not alter the fact that they are more closely related to each other than to strangers.

Once again Prof. Whitney has demonstrated the absurdity of the “variation” argument. He points out that one could take the total genetic diversity contained within the population of Belfast and a troop of macaque monkeys and give it an index of 100 percent. Surprising as it may seem, more than half of that diversity will be found both in the population of Belfast and in the monkey troop. There is great genetic diversity even between two individuals who are very similar to each other. This does not, of course, mean that Irishmen are more like macaques than they are like their neighbors, though this is precisely the way the there-are-no-races advocates use the argument when they apply it to humans.

Prof. Whitney explains that just as in the case of the genetic differences between men and women, “the meaningful question about racial differences is not the percentage of total diversity, but rather how the diversity is distributed among the races, what traits it influences, and how it is patterned.” Small genetic differences can translate into important physical and behavioral differences.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: My source is Nationmaster as well as Comparative Criminology (on the African and Caribbean statistics). There would be no point to hide sources since this can easily be looked up. We’re typing on a blog so I see no point to go into too much detail but if you guys want sources they can be given.

FRANK: You may want to look at the sources cited by Nationmaster:

Overall, figure 1 shows comparatively low homicide levels in countries in Europe, Asia and North America, with reasonable agreement between criminal justice and public health data.

In contrast, both criminal justice and public health data (albeit with less agreement) indicate significantly higher rates in South America, Central America, the Caribbean, and Southern Africa.

Large data discrepancies remain for Middle, Western, and Eastern Africa. Substantive work on administrative data recording systems in both the criminal justice and public health fields is required in these sub Ǧ regions before
meaningful comparisons can be made with other
sub Ǧ regions of the world.

Figure 1 also reveals the continued existence of signficant data limitations. In particular, very few countries in Middle, West and Eastern Africa are able to provide criminal justice data on intentional homicide. Where data is available, significant differences exist as compared with
public health figures. The limitations in criminal justice data availability in Africa relative to other regions are shown in
figure 2

What would happen to forensic legal investigations if we utilized your logic…

AB: If the genetic profile is available, then gender could be figured out automatically. Unlike gender though, which depends on the Y chromosome, there are no specific genes that discretely determines “race”; but once again, the individual genetic profile and medical reports should be more than enough.

FRANK: Actually we can use genetic mapping testing to determine the race of individuals with great success.

In addition, it would be silly to assume that doctors can genetically map every human patient they hold as a client without passing on massive costs to the taxpayers and patients themselves.

“But recently some researchers have moved to examining genetic differences between participants rather than relying on race and ethnicity. Their reasoning is that genetic differences may be a more precise tool for tracking groups of patients. Risch points out that this genetic analysis is costly. If people fall into the same groups using self-identified race as using genetics, then that could bring down the expanding cost of medical research.”

AB: Within Africa there is more genetic variation than the rest of the world combined. So, if you are a doctor and trying to treat a patient with the sole information that he is “black” then you are not much better than a witch doctor. But if you have the full genetic and medical profile, then you hardly bother asking anything else.

FRANK: Regurgitating fallacious quotes from Graves is not a rational argument when the evidence illustrates that ethnicity based medicine already has validity:

The fact that we can use genetics to map racial groups is evidence that each group has a unique make-up regardless of the genetic bean counting.

Results

“Phylogenetic analysis based on two different approaches – genetic distance and maximum likelihood along with statistical bootstrapping procedure involving 1000 replicates was carried out. The ensuing tree topologies and PC plots were further compared with those obtained in earlier phylogenetic investigations. The compiled database of 21 populations got segregated and finely resolved into three basal clusters with very high bootstrap values corresponding to three geo-ethnic groups of African, Orientals, and Caucasians.”

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

ADMIN:Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe and one of the highest in the world. According to a 2009 study, there were 46 incidents of rape per 100,000 residents. This figure is double as many as in the UK which reports 23 cases, and four times that of the other Nordic countries, Germany and France. The figure is up to 20 times the figure for certain countries in southern and eastern Europe.[38]

According to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, the high numbers are explained by a broader legal definiton of rape than in other countries, and an effort to register all suspected and repeated rapes. A comparison based on victim surveys places Sweden at an average level among European nations

FRANK: We also have to take into account that the people committing the lions share of the crimes are not actual Swedes but third-world migrants:

If we look at the United States, a supposedly White nation we would see that the murder rates would be reduced by half if the black arrestees were not part of the equation. If you look at Table 43 of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports you will see that over 50% of arrestees for murder are blacks.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

What I find amusing about the citation of crime statistics is that there is always a convenient excuse for White or Asian crime while Blacks criminals commit crime because they are Black. When you debate a racialist on crime statistics there bias becomes most apparent considering the double standard when it comes to looking at the race of criminals.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Frank, I know that small genetic differences can lead to large differences in phenotypes.(Of course, “large” is subjective. I may think humans and mice are very similar while another person might feel insulted by that thought). But I never made that 99% argument.
I argued that dog breeds are not as similar to each other as human races are.

“It is likely that different breeds are as close genetically as different races of humans, but there is no doubt that these subtle variations result in significant differences in appearance, intelligence, and behavior.”

This comment is an outdated speculation. Dog genome has been sequenced to a large extent. And in the nature article link I posted , the genetic difference between dog breeds has been found to be far greater than between human races (35% vs 10-15%).

Also important, all these differences in dog genome is mostly a result of purposeful hybidization as opposed to mostly random mating habits in humans. This can further amplify phenotypic differences even with the same amount of genetic differences.

Do you know that ancestors of all human beings outside of Africa can be traced to a single man about 60 thousand years ago? And that the ancestors of all human beings in general can be traced to a single woman 150 thousand years ago? There are documentaries in youtube about the OUT OF AFRICA theory like “Journey of Man”, “Human family tree”, “In search of scientific Adam.”, “The real eve” etc. 150000 years ago the total human population was less than 2000. The group that left Africa 60000 years ago was likely less than 200 in number.
Now Imagine that all the billions of humans came from these few people in such a short time.

I always thought that this website was about exposing evil feminist politics, stupid censorship and the hatred of men and not about bashing ALL women in general. If you are going to argue that all women are genetically evil, then that’s another belief.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Also, Frank, you are right about some genes controlling other genes. In fact, there are mutator genes that causes mutation or at least increases the rate of mutation in other genes under environmental pressure.

However, this argument can be just as easily turned in favour of the “environmental” side of the argument. The expression of genes themselves are controlled by epigenetics and this epigenetics is actually to a large extent influenced by the environment. Moreoever, this epigenetics can also be inherited from previous generation.
So if you add all that up, environmental change can itself lead to a massive amount of change in individuals by controlling genetic expression and even genetic mutation (since there are mutator genes). And this change can last for generations because epigentics can be inherited for several generations.

Also, same phenotype can arise independently in different populations. Example- genes that allow the digestion of milk in adults. This gene is present in most Northern Europeans as well as in certain east African groups. And they developed this independently.
Now what does that mean?No one has been able to identify a gene for intelligence. The only gene that been found so far is present not only in all humans, but also in all rats/mice. So even if there was a gene for intelligence, we can’t say that it only exists in one race.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: This comment is an outdated speculation. Dog genome has been sequenced to a large extent. And in the nature article link I posted , the genetic difference between dog breeds has been found to be far greater than between human races (35% vs 10-15%).

Also important, all these differences in dog genome is mostly a result of purposeful hybidization as opposed to mostly random mating habits in humans. This can further amplify phenotypic differences even with the same amount of genetic differences.

FRANK: The argument illustrates a legitimate point that greater genetic variation within a group in comparison to between group differences does not negate the ability to make a zoological classification. This is the primary point of the debate.

The logic that differences are somehow negated by controlled breeding and not-so-controlled breeding that yield similar divisions in the end is quite silly to say the least. Clearly, he mating habits of humans have not been so random as to eliminate the ability to create offspring that can be classified as a zoological racial group.

We have irrefutable evidence that geneticists have been able to successfully map people into their correct racial groups. We have irrefutable evidence that forensic anthropologists can determine “race” with 100% accuracy based using measurements of pelvic and skull bones. We have irrefutable evidence that forensic investigators can determine race

“Sauer explained that in forensic anthropology race is assigned with high probability on the basis of an algorithm that combines a series of measurements.

According to him, it is taken for granted among forensic anthropologists that race is determinable from the skull and postcranium, and ‘‘if such a determination is not possible, the problem is usually attributed to the incomplete nature of the remains or mixed ancestry’’ (ibid. p. 109)

Indeed, a quick look into the literature conﬁrms this. For instance, a study that covered 17 populations over the world and that relied on 34 different measurements managed to assign 98% of the specimens to their correct major racial group (Brues 1990, 6). Another more recent study had a success rate of 80% in distinguishing between American Whites and Blacks, although it used just two variables.

With seven variables, however, it reached the reliability of 95%, and with 19 variables the probability of correct classiﬁcation rose to 97% (Ousley et al. 2009). Also, estimating generally the reliability of attributing a given data point to one of the ﬁve racial categories, another team of experts calculated that under some realistic conditions it is sufﬁcient to use as few as 13 characteristics to have the posterior probability of the correct classiﬁcation attain the value of 99% (Konigsberg et al. 2009)

The empirical reality appears to refute decisively the claim so conﬁdently advocated by many philosophers that ‘‘as the number of traits increases, racial classiﬁcation becomes increasingly difﬁcult’’ (Andreasen 2004, 428), or that ‘‘multiplying phenotypic racial traits has the result … that … they correlate with one another in no particular order, throwing the alleged features for biological racial reality into an unorganized mess’’ (Glasgow 2009, 88). This is exactly backwards:multiplying relevant phenotypic racial traits brings more order and structure, and indeed lays ground for an objective biological classiﬁcation”

As mentioned earlier, the genetic evidence itself leads to racial classification. What is fascinating is that the evidence essentially destroys the arguments of race-deniers yet they continue to spout Lewontin-ish garbage as it if has been totally vindicated by the evidence.

A group of researchers led by geneticist Neil Risch analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers on a sample of 3,636 subjects from the United States and Taiwan. The subjects identiﬁed themselves as belonging to one of the four racial groups (white, African American, East Asian and Hispanic).

The genetic cluster analysis of the data produced four major clusters, whose correspondence with the four self reported races was near-perfect: the genetic cluster membership and self-identiﬁed race coincided in as many as 99.9% of the cases. Commenting on this result in an interview, Risch said that if the concept of race is regarded as genetically suspect because of this extremely low discordance rate of 0.1%, then any classiﬁcatory scheme should be rejected as well because ‘‘any category you come up with is going to be imperfect’’ (Gitschier 2005, 4). He added that if nothing short of a perfect correspondence could legitimate the genetic basis of a common sense category, then it would follow that even the distinction between ‘‘male’’ and ‘‘female’’ has nothing to do with genetics either, since in his study a discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome was actually higher that the discordance rate between self-reported race and the genetic cluster membership.

A good measure of the robustness of racial genetic differentiation is the answer to the following question: ‘‘How often does it happen that a pair of individuals from one population is genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?’’ In fact, if many thousands of loci are used as a basis for judging genetic similarity and when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations, the correct answer, which many will probably ﬁnd surprising, is: ‘‘Never’’ (Witherspoon et al. 2007, 357).

To illustrate how, due to recent developments in science, a chasm opened between the consensus in philosophy of biology and views of some cutting edge geneticists, let me juxtapose contrasting statements of two authorities in these two ﬁelds. David Hull, philosopher: ‘‘The subdivisions of Homo sapiens that experts recognize do not come close to coinciding with the ‘races’ of ordinary people’’ (Hull 1998, 366). Neil Risch and his team of geneticists: ‘‘The correspondence between genetic cluster and self-identiﬁed race/ethnicity is remarkably high… Accordingly, in this case, major self-identiﬁed race/ethnicity and genetic cluster are effectively synonymous’’ (Tang et al. 2005, 271—italics added). In another paper Risch stated that ‘‘effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical deﬁnition of races based on continental ancestry’’ (Risch et al. 2002)

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: What I find amusing about the citation of crime statistics is that there is always a convenient excuse for White or Asian crime while Blacks criminals commit crime because they are Black. When you debate a racialist on crime statistics there bias becomes most apparent considering the double standard when it comes to looking at the race of criminals.

FRANK: While AB seems to ignore arguments he does not like you outright seem to manipulate arguments to support your view point.

Both the administrator and myself observed that you did not cite your source “Nationmaster.” What is most ridiculous is that you argued that you had no reason to do so in spite of the fact the evidence is clear that you did not cite Nationmaster once or even include a link to the source.

The only reason I can see for this action is that an examination of the primary sources used by Nationmaster would show serious flaws in the distribution of the information. You probably knew we could take the sources apart hence you hid them.

You approached this part of the debate in a spirit of deceit and now you lecture us on our intellectual dishonesty (hypocrisy.)

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: Also, same phenotype can arise independently in different populations. Example- genes that allow the digestion of milk in adults. This gene is present in most Northern Europeans as well as in certain east African groups. And they developed this independently. Now what does that mean?

FRANK: You tell me what it means:

Black Kids Twice as Likely to Have Food Sensitivities to Peanuts, Eggs, Milk

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: My point stands on the matter. In fact the subjectivity of crime and sexual behavior definitions is a point Graves brought up in his presentation at John Jay College. There is no universal standard for which to compile these statistics. When you go country by country, regardless of the source the pattern does not fit Rushton’s 3 race hierarchy.

FRANK: You may have a point when you consider that “White” nations technically have higher sexual crime rates due to the inflation created by minorities.

Look at the United States for example. The U.S. is a White majority nation yet in 2010 blacks made up 31.8% of forcible rape arrestees. This is over double their population rate. In 2009 blacks made up 32.5% of all forcible rape arrestees. This information can be located on Table 43 of the FBI Uniform Crime Report.

The rape rates in America would be reduced dramatically if the black rates were not present. If America was a truly White nation, there would not be a 32% rape overrepresentation.

EgalitarianJay... says:

You can make all the assumptions you want Frank but the fact is that I have no reason to hid sources when any information I type can easily be looked up.

I did not hid anything and I did not make any attempt to deceive you.

I’m making an observation here. Racialists will find any excuse to ignore or discredit the fact that there are majority White countries with high crime rates and majority Black countries with low crime rates because it discredits their racial theories.

Nevermind the interpretations of data by you and the Admin, in the thread you created on The Phora prior to your banning I brought up the mass rape and mutilation of Chinese citizens by Japanese soldiers (Rape of Nanking) as evidence that Asians can behave collectively in a savage and brutal manner.

Phora posters did not know what to do with this information. One made the typical response that soldiers are not comparable to civilians but did not explain why. What is it about an armed man given a license to kill by his country that makes his immoral behavior that is consistent with the worst of criminals excusable but civilian criminals convicted of the same crime are acting on racially ordained behavior?

One of the posters actually tried to deny the historical events even happened at all.

Denial and excuses. That is the pattern of response I get on this subject which tells me this is not a scientific pursuit of knowledge or honest citation of statistics the motivation is to advance an emotionally appealing ideological agenda.

And that’s not a personal attack that is a general observation of the way racialists approach debate.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: However, this argument can be just as easily turned in favour of the “environmental” side of the argument. The expression of genes themselves are controlled by epigenetics and this epigenetics is actually to a large extent influenced by the environment. Moreoever, this epigenetics can also be inherited from previous generation.

FRANK: People who believe in race fully accept that environment plays a key role in racial development. Humans tend to develop according to their environment. We fully accept the “cline” arguments for example:

“First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.

“The ‘reality of race’ therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether ‘real’ or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is ‘only skin deep’ is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

“Morphological characteristics…like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies [used to deny race] are not shaped by these same climatic factors.

“Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the ‘race denial’ faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in ‘race denial’ are in ‘reality denial’ as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.” ( Dr. George W. Gill, 2000)

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Frank you just took one country (the USA) and made a sweeping generalization about all majority White countries. Yes, the USA is majority White with a near 30% non-White minority and ethnic groups like African-Americans who have been economically disenfranchised are overrepresented in several crimes. But what about countries with high rape rates like Romania that are almost 100% White?

There isn’t just one or two there are several of them.

Can you blame the high crime rates on minorities in ALL of them?

I don’t believe you can.

A scientist would look at this fact and accept the likelihood that there are many environmental factors contributing to trends in crime rates globally such as poverty, upbringing and surrounding influences which impact behavior while ideologically driven racialists want to blame genetics when it suits them.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: Frank you just took one country (the USA) and made a sweeping generalization about all majority White countries. Yes, the USA is majority White with a near 30% non-White minority and ethnic groups like African-Americans who have been economically disenfranchised are overrepresented in several crimes. But what about countries with high rape rates like Romania that are almost 100% White?

FRANK: I have made no sweeping generalizations Jay. I have provided evidence that the higher rape rate for Sweden is attributed to migrants, they account for 50% of the rapes.

In Norway. most of the rapes have been committed by third world migrants:

In Russia, 40% of ALL crime has been attributed to immigrants largely from developing nations.

The patterns of migrant crime are pretty well fluid and well-established. My argument is simple, one cannot assume that White majority nations with higher rape rates disprove Rushtons argument. It is quite possible that migrants and minorities commit a lions share of those crimes. There is evidence pointing to this…

And as far as “economic disenfraschised” goes it certainly would explain crimes like theft but how it explains forcible rape is beyond me.

The Romania argument is equally weak. At absolute best you found one of the few anomalies. Of course, variations do not negate the averages as I have explained to you at least 100 times now across two different mediums.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

They are not anomalies they are facts that contradict your theories. Like I said Romania is one of several countries where the countries are almost 100% White and there is no reason to assume the perpetrators are not also vast majority White.

Even if I accepted the claims about Russia or other countries you listed one would need to go on a case by case basis to establish that there is a consistent pattern. Rushton only reports the stats that favor his theory and ignores the ones that don’t.

As far as rape and poverty are concerned there are other variables that correlate with poverty such as drug abuse and domestic violence during childhood which can have a psychological effect on someone’s mind making them more prone to violent or deviant behavior.

Rape is also not always an impulsive crime. It can be cold and calculating with the rapist plotting out their actions in advance so it doesn’t follow that simply having a higher libido makes you more prone to being a rapist.

As I said before I question the logic of using crime statistics to make generalizations about a population in the first place. Criminals don’t represent the average person. At best if you wanted to argue that some people were more benevolent than others you could look at cultural history to see if some societies are generally more peaceful and moral than others.

When we look at cultural history we find that some countries that are peaceful today were very violent and immoral only a couple of years ago (ex. Germany and Japan) which suggests that social policy can change dramatically over short time scales contradicting the theory of biologically determined or racially ordained behavior.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: They are not anomalies they are facts that contradict your theories. Like I said Romania is one of several countries where the countries are almost 100% White and there is no reason to assume the perpetrators are not also vast majority White.

FRANK: And this is what I was explaining to the administrator earlier. “Anti-racists” and “race-deniers” deal in absolutes. They do not accept that variations and anomalies do not negate the averages. To them any variation quashes a rule, to them the exceptions are the rules.

The rape and poverty excuse is most amusing. It is merely a quasi-ad hoc last-minute attempt to link a certain crime to environment. What is quite fascinating is that “anti-racists” will treat any of their theories as absolute truth. They will treat their correlations as causations.

Their environmental “explanations” will always be the default proper positions regardless of what evidence is provided in counter…

Of course, let their opposition do the same, even if to a greater more credible degree, they will scream that correlation does not equal causation and they will demand absolute proof of any theory put forward.

And of course if this is successfully done by the opposition, they will just argue that their explanations are correct and that will be the bottom line.

They will also raise the goal posts of evidence to ridiculous levels such as saying: “Even if I accepted the claims about Russia or other countries you listed one would need to go on a case by case basis to establish that there is a consistent pattern.”

In other words for these statistics to have meaning I have to examine every criminal in those states and report back as to the findings which is simply impossible. Second, why would this be done when government and law enforcement authorities have provided these numbers for us?

Of course, Egalitarian Jay keeps speaking of Rushtons theories. Here is his earlier theory on the issue:

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: As I said before I question the logic of using crime statistics to make generalizations about a population in the first place. Criminals don’t represent the average person. At best if you wanted to argue that some people were more benevolent than others you could look at cultural history to see if some societies are generally more peaceful and moral than others.

FRANK: This makes no sense and contradicts your earlier points. If we cannot use crime statistics to judge the peaceful nature of a society how can we use their ruling governments and militaries to do so? The governments and military forces make up a small percentage of those nations.

Second, as we have debated beforehand nobody denies that during times of war people can be vicious. Nobody ever argued that Whites and Asians are free of blame.

You quote Japan and Germany as destructive historically yet you forget that Africans have committed the more recent mass-genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. They murdered millions in the Congo not to mention committed democide on a mass-basis since from recorded history to the modern day. The results would have been much worse had they had the technologically and engineering ability to create military equipment to cause the mass-destruction wrought by Japan, Germany and America in WWII.

However, crime statistics during peace time tells a lot about populations especially when patterns of behaviour can be established via such statistics.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Frank,

First of all I am not talking about exceptions to the rule.

I am using the same standard you are, looking at the crime rates of countries but I am simply looking at every country with available stats and unfortunately for proponents of racialism the averages of many countries do not fit with their theory. Interpol has collected data on a large number of countries so it is possible to go country by country.

Regarding military and government, you haven’t provided a valid reason why we should hold military personnel to a different standard than civilians. Several military powers have conducted operations while maintaining a moral standard on war practices which is why we charge people with war crimes when they commit atrocities during war.

I find no reason to excuse a soldier who breaks into someone’s house, rapes their female relatives and kills their whole family. I judge the person no differently than I would a rapist living in an inner city slum who does the exact same thing. Having a gun and a uniform and being given a license to kill for your country does not justify inhumane acts.

I don’t forget the atrocities in Africa. Again I hold everyone to the same standard. Japanese soldiers did not need weapons of mass destruction to go into the houses of Chinese citizens, rape the women in mass and mutilate them with bayonets behaving in the same manner as Africans in Rwanda killing people with machetes.

Again you want to argue about racially ordained behavior hold people to the exact same standard regardless of social setting and then see if your racial theories pan out. Only by equalizing environment can you really conduct any credible experiments to determine phenotypic and genotypic relationships in the first place.

Graves talked about this at length but it seems that Rushton and his supporters don’t seem to get it or don’t recognize the point as valid.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: I am using the same standard you are, looking at the crime rates of countries but I am simply looking at every country with available stats and unfortunately for proponents of racialism the averages of many countries do not fit with their theory. Interpol has collected data on a large number of countries so it is possible to go country by country.

FRANK: This is the very thing Rushton did Jay but you argue that Graves discredited him on the issue:

“The global nature of the racial pattern in crime is shown in data collated from INTERPOL using the 1984 and 1986 yearbooks. After analyzing information on nearly 100 countries, I reported, in the 1990 issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology, that African and Caribbean countries had double the rate of violent crime (an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries, and three times more than did countries in the Pacific Rim. Averaging over the three crimes and two time periods, the figures per 100,000 population were, respectively, 142, 74, and 43.

I have corroborated these results using the most recent INTERPOL yearbook (1990). The rates of murder, rape, and serious assault per 100,000 population reported for 23 predominantly African countries, 41 Caucasian countries, and 12 Asian countries were: for murder, 13, 5, and 3; for rape, 17, 6, and 3; and for serious assault, 213, 63, and 27. Summing the crimes gave figures per 100,000, respectively, of 243, 74, and 33. The gradient remained robust over contrasts of racially homogeneous countries in northeast Asia, central Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, or of racially mixed but predominantly black or white/Amerindian countries in the Caribbean and Central America. In short, a stubborn pattern exists worldwide that requires explanation.”

EGALITARIAN JAY: Regarding military and government, you haven’t provided a valid reason why we should hold military personnel to a different standard than civilians. Several military powers have conducted operations while maintaining a moral standard on war practices which is why we charge people with war crimes when they commit atrocities during war.

FRANK: When did I say they should be held to a differing standard? I am pointing out that military forces do not represent the entire population of their states hence it is fallacious to use your misnamed “cultural history” to gauge societies. I am using your standard against you. Your reasoning for dismissing crime stats as representative is more appropriate to your argument.

EGALITARIAN JAY: Again you want to argue about racially ordained behavior hold people to the exact same standard regardless of social setting and then see if your racial theories pan out. Only by equalizing environment can you really conduct any credible experiments to determine phenotypic and genotypic relationships in the first place.

Graves talked about this at length but it seems that Rushton and his supporters don’t seem to get it or don’t recognize the point as valid.

FRANK: You are the one using loaded terms like “racially ordained” behaviour not Rushton. I will agree with you that the delusional rantings and ravings of Joseph Graves is incomprehensible to people like Rushton. However, this is common for those are being attacked for positions they do not hold. Rushton stated:

“I emphasize at the outset that enormous variability exists within each of the populations on many of the traits to be discussed. Because distributions substantially overlap, with average differences amounting to between 4 and 34 percent, it is highly problematic to generalize from a group average to a particular individual.”

I am sure most of us would be confused by the little fantasy world Graves has set up for himself where Germans were never interned in WWII, “racist” professors are free to speak without fear of career ruination and Gould is a valid source of information.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Actually Frank, Rushton did use the phrase “racially ordained behavior” in his presentation at John Jay College.

The problem with Rushton’s figures is that he aggregates data without consideration for control or comparability.

MacEachern pointed out the fallacies of his aggregation method when responding to the email he sent you.

(1) Aggregation of data is only useful if some degree of control and comparability are exerted over the data being aggregated – otherwise, you end up with the GIGO Rule (Garbage In, Garbage Out). Many of Rushton’s data sources are exceptionally poor, to the point of being caricatures of scientific research: thus, one of his primary sources on ‘sexual behaviour’ is a book of 19th-century travel porn, of no serious scientific value, and many of the studies that he cites on IQ and brain size are based on datasets that even people who agree with him accept as unreliable. In the most direct sense, many of his data are the garbage in the GIGO Rule. You may or may not have read David Barash’s review of Rushton’s methodology: “…the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit.” Barash, David 1995. Review of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. _Animal Behaviour_ 49:1131-1133

(2) Aggregating data on (say) brain size or twinning rates into his three ‘racial’ groupings conceals the very significant variations in aggregated characteristics _within_ those racial groups. Essentially, he reduces very, very, very diverse characteristics down to single numbers, then generalises those single numbers to every population within his putative races. However, averages among diverse populations tell you almost nothing about the distributions of those diverse characteristics, nor about the evolutionary pressures that might have brought them into being.

(3) Many of the characteristics that he thinks are evolutionarily determined have actually changed dramatically over historical time-periods in different parts of the world (and are extremely variable _within_ his ‘racial’ populations – see #2 above): besides obvious things like longevity, fertility and infant mortality rates, these include characteristics like twinning rates, speed of sexual maturation/first menarche and so on. He treats them as immutable evolutionary differences, whereas in fact they seem entirely sensitive to historical contingency over short time-scales.

The fact is that Rushton is not a credible source on Human Evolution and has been debunked.

Not only Graves but several scholars with Anthropological and Biological expertise have exposed the fallacies of his arguments:

J.P. Rushton’s view of human evolution suffers from the use of antiquated and simplistic theoretical models concerning life history evolution. In addition, his methods of data analysis, results, and data sources call into question the legitimacy of his research. In the unabridged version of his book, he claims ‘to have reviewed the international literature on race differences, gathered novel data and found a distinct pattern’ (Rushton, 1995: xiii). This is fallacious on many accounts. Although the scope of the literature is international, to an extent, the data are not novel and the pattern he ‘found’ is hardly distinct from common racist stereotypes. He has only spun a tangled web of disingenuous construction speculations, in which:

1. He failed to grasp the history and formulation of density dependent selection theory.

2. He failed to review the critical experiments that falsified the central predictions of r- and K-selection theory.

3. He incorrectly applied r- and K-theory to explain human life history evolution.

4. He has presented data that are woefully inadequate to test any specific hypothesis concerning the evolution of human life histories.

Source: What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton’s life history theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131–154

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Honestly Frank,

We’ve debated this stuff for about two years with no resolution. You’re not going to agree with me and I’m not going to agree with you so I see further exchanges as futile. The Admin has already decided which camp he falls into. I think this Race and Intelligence section hurts the credibility of his blog but if he wants to defend this research that’s his business.

I will leave my Youtube channel up and provide videos that counter the arguments made in favor of racialism and the racist ideology behind it.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Frank, you are missing the very point. If you just want to classify, you can do it in at least several thousand ways. Nobody denies that.
For example, I can come back to the example of lactose tolerance gene and can define a “race” that can digest milk as adults. A genetic test will reveal the members of this race with almost 100% accuracy. And this race will include both white and dark skinned people.
I can also define a “race” as someone taller than 5 feet 5 inches. This is again a very precise definition, but will be harder to classify by simply looking at the genes.

The question is not whether one can classify, but what makes a meaningful classification. Whether superficial physical traits like skin colour or slanted eyes makes a race.
The thing about race has more to do with “common sense” than science.
The point being that two “white” people can be easily more genetically distant than a “white” and a “black” person. It doesn’t LOOK that way because we only pay attention to some superficial features.
Most respected geneticists don’t think that there is any such thing as a biological race and is mostly a social construct.
Craig Venter is one. EJay’s videos has some geneticists talking about it.

May be.
But the problem with this argument is that we can also do similar classifications with slightly different groups.
This merely proves that there are geographically separable traits such as skeletal structure.
However, these traits change in a continuum and not discretely as white black chinese nativeamericans etc.

If you define a “negro” race, it gives an utterly false picture because within Africa there are thousands of different groups – all very different. For example, Africa contains the tallest as well as the shortest tribes in the world. What we call race in the society is based on nothing but the most superficial features that strike us immediately as belonging to a particular geographic group. However, geographically determined genes are not only a very small percentage in humans, but they also don’t exist separately in groups, and are a part of a continuum. This combined with all the inter-geographic breeding that goes on, makes it impossible to concretely define race scientifically.

If you accept the roles of environment, then I think the very concept of race becomes unneccessary, whether or not it’s real.
I am not claiming that anyone can become Usain Bolt. However, it’s possible that with proper environment anyone not handicapped can run REALLY fast (like under 11.5s 100m). And that can make a difference in more complex sports.

And intelligence is so complex that we can’t even define intelligence properly, let alone measure reliably. So what’s the point of discussions like race and intelligence?

Isn’t it more constructive to experiment on proper environment and training methods for individuals? And when it comes to selection, is it not more constructive to select based on individual merit?

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

My last comment is hard to understand because the quotes didn’t get published. So, I will try again.

” The argument illustrates a legitimate point that greater genetic variation within a group in comparison to between group differences does not negate the ability to make a zoological classification. This is the primary point of the debate. ”
Frank, you are missing the very point.

“If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans”
May be.

“People who believe in race fully accept that environment plays a key role in racial development. Humans tend to develop according to their environment.”

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 00

This argument is very interesting. There seems to have been selection for the tallest and shortest people. For long distance runners and for short distance sprinters. All in different African populaces.

So there is major variety in Africa. Except in skin color (for obvious reasons).

But it also seems, no single tribe has high intelligence and high self control in the sense of low impulsiveness.

That selection has happened out of Africa. No-one found the highest IQ tribe in Africa, the math genius Physics Nobel Prize winning African tribe.

Not one African tribe sailed the world to conquer far-away continents. No high technology. And from what I understand, Zimbabwe, South Africa etc. went downhill when white rule ended. But, I admit I am not the specialist in African history.

But the main point which seems very clear: no High IQ low impulsiveness tribe ever was found in Africa.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: Frank, you are missing the very point. If you just want to classify, you can do it in at least several thousand ways. Nobody denies that. For example, I can come back to the example of lactose tolerance gene and can define a “race” that can digest milk as adults. A genetic test will reveal the members of this race with almost 100% accuracy. And this race will include both white and dark skinned people.
I can also define a “race” as someone taller than 5 feet 5 inches. This is again a very precise definition, but will be harder to classify by simply looking at the genes.

FRANK: I highly doubt anyone would attempt to define a racial group on the basis of one trait as you have just done.

But as J. Philippe Rushton would argue:

“Here I will briefly summarize the findings. Asians and Africans consistently aggregate at opposite ends, with Europeans intermediate, on a continuum that includes over 60 anatomical and social variables. These 60 variables include brain size, intelligence, sexual habits, fertility, personality, temperament, speed of maturation, and longevity. If race were an arbitrary, socially-constructed concept, devoid of all biological meaning, such consistent relationships would not exist.

Those objecting to the concept of race argue that the taxonomic definitions are arbitrary and subjective. Although critics are correct to point out that the variation within each race is extremely large, that there is disagreement as to exactly how many races there are, and that there is a blurring of category edges because of admixture, they are in error when they claim that classifications are arbitrary. For example, race-critic Jared Diamond, in the 1994 issue of Discover Magazine, surveyed half a dozen geographically variable traits and formed very different races depending on which traits he picked. Classifying people using anti-malarial genes, lactose tolerance, fingerprint patterns, or skin color resulted in the Swedes of Europe being placed in the same category as the Xhosa and Fulani of Africa, the Ainu of Japan, and the Italians of Europe.

Jared Diamond’s classifications, however, are arbitrary and nonsensical because they have little, if any, predictive value beyond the initial classification. More significantly, they confuse the scientific meaning of race, that is, a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population. In everyday life, as in evolutionary biology, a “negroid is someone whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa, and likewise for a “caucasoid and a “mongoloid. This definition fits with the temporal bounds offered by the best current theory of human evolution. Thus, since Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago, branched off into Europe about 110,000 years ago, and into Asia 70,000 years after that, a “negroid” is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa — and likewise, for a caucasoid and a mongoloid.”

AB: Most respected geneticists don’t think that there is any such thing as a biological race and is mostly a social construct.

FRANK: This is an appeal to anonymous authority and prejudicial language in one statement. You have simply decided that “most” geneticists support your view without any qualification. And even if you did find such a supportive poll I would point out that in East Germany most polls would have proven that political scientists and economists supported Marxism.

Second, what is with the respectable comment? I have produced numerous genetic maps, studies and research conclusions from medical researchers not to mention forensic experts who support the existence of race. Are they not respectable because they support your friend Jays perspective ?

MACEACHERN: (2) Aggregating data on (say) brain size or twinning rates into his three ‘racial’ groupings conceals the very significant variations in aggregated characteristics _within_ those racial groups. Essentially, he reduces very, very, very diverse characteristics down to single numbers, then generalises those single numbers to every population within his putative races. However, averages among diverse populations tell you almost nothing about the distributions of those diverse characteristics, nor about the evolutionary pressures that might have brought them into being.

FRANK:

1) “Dizygotic pregnancies present wide variations of rate of occurence in different racial groups. The estimates are being revised due to new reproductive technologies. However, dizygotic twinning rates are especially high in African populations (from 1:63 to as high as 1:11 births) and very low in Asiatics (1:330 births). Caucasians stand in the middle (between 1:125 and 1:80 births.) (Bulmer 1970; Little and Thompson 1988; Bryan 1992; Segal 1999). Such differences seem to be linked principally to genetic factors. It is frequently said that twins ‘run in the family,’ and a genetic predisposition has indeed been found to to exist (Allen 1978).”

The incidence of monozygotic twins is constant worldwide (approximately 4 per 1000 births). Approximately two thirds of twins are dizygotic. Birth rates of dizygotic twins vary by race (10-40 per 1000 in blacks, 7-10 per 1000 births in whites, and approximately 3 per 1000 in Asians), maternal age (ie, increasing frequency with increasing maternal age ≤ 40 y), and other factors such as parity and mode of fertilization (ie, most artificially conceived twins are dizygotic; however, 6-10% are monozygotic). Naturally occurring triplet births occur in approximately 1 per 7000-10,000 births; naturally occurring quadruplet births occur in approximately 1 per 600,000 births.

Since 1970, the prevalence of multiple births has been increasing. A combination of factors including the widespread use of assisted reproductive techniques and advancing maternal age at conception are associated with this phenomenon. In the United States, a plateau in the prevalence of multiple births has been observed since 2004. From 2004–2006, the prevalence of twin deliveries in the United States has remained stable at approximately 32 per 1000 live births, compared with the decreasing prevalence of higher order multiple deliveries.[2]

International

The birthrate of monozygotic twins is constant world wide (approximately 4 per 1000 births). Birth rates of dizygotic twins vary by race. The highest birth rate of dizygotic twinning occurs in African nations, and the lowest birth rate of dizygotic twinning occurs in Asia. The Yorubas of western Nigeria have a birth rate of 45 twins per 1000 live births, and approximately 90% are dizygotic.

3) “There is a well recognized ethnic difference in the twinning rate, twin births being common in the Negro, less frequent in the Mongolian, and intermediate between these two in the Caucasian.

It is widely accepted that the frequency of monozygotic twins is roughly uniform throughout the world, but that of dizygotic twins varies considerably between races. However, there is little difference in the dizygotic twinning rate within each race (Gedda, 1961; Bulmer, 1970), and therefore, the difference between ethnic groups in their twinning rate seems to be of genetic origin”

Frank says:

FRANK: And trust me you will not find it because it is a lie. For all we know these students were affirmative action entry’s who graduated on a D- curve.

In fact it is likely these Africans were AA entry students based on the following complaints from this guy:

“Immigrants make up 13% of the nation’s college-age black population, but their representation in Ivy League and elite universities exceeds 25% of the total enrollment of black students, twice their proportion in the general population! Elite schools are admitting black students, in part to accommodate both legal and sociological goals. Those goals were driven by the Civil Rights Movement of the Vietnam generation. Africans do not necessarily require affirmative action to attend college, but surely many benefit from it. Consequently, many black youngsters that have absolutely no connection to American slavery are benefiting from the Martin Luther King phenomena. Curiously, both the President of the United States, Barack Obama of Kenyan heritage, and arguably the most respected public figure in the nation, Jamaican descendent, Colin Powell, have the same amount of civil rights credentials as Dick Cheney and Pat Buchannan. None.”

Frank says:

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

ADMIN: This argument is very interesting. There seems to have been selection for the tallest and shortest people. For long distance runners and for short distance sprinters. All in different African populaces.

FRANK: What is interesting is how AB ignores the results of empirical studies and opt to promote Diamond and MacEachern style opinions in their place. AB tries to establish “race” through a completely non-predictive trait and a single trait, while a little more predicable, is but a single trait. Of course in contrast he completely ignores the 60 established largely inheritable traits provided by the opposition.

He also ignores that genetic map clustering distinguishes the established races, including “negro”, with great accuracy. We can use forensic analysis to determine the identity of racial groups along their traditional lines with 100% accuracy using skull and pelvic measurements alone.

He even ignores the learned opinions of medical experts who argue that racial medicine is a valuable tool. This alone indicates that these divisions are meaningless.

Frank says:

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Frank: Of course in contrast he completely ignores the 60 established largely inheritable traits provided by the opposition.

EgalitarianJay: What 60 traits? Neither you nor anyone citing Rushton, that I have encountered has ever provided this full list of 60 traits that are supposedly inherited and vary on a continuum. Are we just supposed to take your word for it?

MacEachern dealt with the examples listed by Rushton by exposing the fallacies of his aggregation method. These 60 variables are apparently characteristics that Rushton calls “racial traits” which are supposed to support his
Life-History theory which ofcourse was critiqued and refuted by Graves.

Rushton simply isn’t a credible source to cite on human evolution or life history variation.

The medical, forensic and genetic sources you’ve cited which allegedly support the existence of race are more debatable but it’s a joke to continue to cite Rushton when anthropologists and evolutionary biologists have debunked him.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Admin, I don’t find it surprising that Africans went downhill after the while rule ended, if that’s true. First of all, civilization makes progress based upon knowledge and resources from the previous generation. If you don’t have a good starting point, it may take a long time to catch up, but by that time those with a good starting point will be already ahead. It’s just like poverty- poverty begets poverty- unless the rich are willing to help, but they never do.

Now, I don’t disagree with you completely. I believe it’s possible that whites are more curious, more explorers on the average. But that’s still an average. Also, most people will not think about exploring new territories unless they are at least moderately confident that they can overcome the risks. If you are a street dog, you don’t try to enter your neighbour’s territory unless you are significantly stronger. Because of that, you just can’t count out all blacks as not interested in exploring and learning.

However, I feel that your ideas about IQ is largely based on common sense. People routinely use the word IQ in everyday language and make claims that are not supported by evidence. There are just too many IQ myths.

I don’t know if you know this, but the blacks in west today actually do much better in IQ tests than whites from 1950. The IQ scores don’t reflect that because it is a relative measure. (I am sure you have heard about the Flynn Effect.)

The main components of IQ seems to be working memory, motivation and knowledge of abstract patterns. The last one is highly learnable and is the main reason why IQ rises with time and why certain brief educational programs has been able to produce IQ gains. Working memory seems to be like muscles – it can be trained with memory related games like dual n-back – and good nutrition also helps. Is motivation genetic? Maybe. But I doubt it’s racially determined because all races seem to have people who are motivated in learning and people who are not, although the percentage may vary.

But let’s not forget that people are only interested in learning and exploring when they have a settled life. Most Africans do not have a nice settled or peaceful life, nor an environment where they can get intellectual stimulation comparable to whites.

If you live in an environment where you have to fight for your bread, you don’t have much interest in learning and exploring. This is also probably the main reason for black violence, because you learn from childhood that physical strength works.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EgalitarianJay: MacEachern dealt with the examples listed by Rushton by exposing the fallacies of his aggregation method. These 60 variables are apparently characteristics that Rushton calls “racial traits” which are supposed to support his Life-History theory which ofcourse was critiqued and refuted by Graves.

FRANK: MacEachern “addressed” them and failed to realize that Rushtons “racial traits” namely twin-egging were supported by not only medical science but his own sources.

MacEachern in his usual complete lack of common sense provided you a source that allegedly disproved the twin-egging patterns based on a few anomalies.

What is fascinating is when I actually did the arithmetic, I discovered that MacEacherns source supported the rankings provided by Rushton and medical science to much more harsh and severe degree. His source provided a more radical incidence of difference between the three groups:

Dizygotic Twinning – MacEacherns’ Source

NEGROID: 17.2 to 66.5 per 1000
CAUCASOID: 11.0 to 20.0 per 1000
MONGOLOID: 9.0 per 1000

EGALITARIAN JAY: The medical, forensic and genetic sources you’ve cited which allegedly support the existence of race are more debatable but it’s a joke to continue to cite Rushton when anthropologists and evolutionary biologists have debunked him.

FRANK: Your tactic of debate is to find any clown with a few letters after his name, present his criticisms and present them as absolute truth regardless of the validity of the criticisms. When debating Egalitarian Jay one must remember:

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: Rushton simply isn’t a credible source to cite on human evolution or life history variation.

FRANK: You do not view any source that contradicts Graves as a credible source. I have provided studies from Forensic Anthropologists (Not clownish humanity anthropologists), geneticists, clinical medical researchers and Biologists who specialize in medical science and you crapped them all with some cheesy ad nauseam pre-selected cut and pastes by Joseph Graves.

I do not think you would accept any source that contradicts anything he has to say Jay. You certainly did not give any credibility to this review in spite of the fact Graves dismissed the review as an attack by an enemy without addressing a single point.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: However, I feel that your ideas about IQ is largely based on common sense. People routinely use the word IQ in everyday language and make claims that are not supported by evidence. There are just too many IQ myths.

I don’t know if you know this, but the blacks in west today actually do much better in IQ tests than whites from 1950. The IQ scores don’t reflect that because it is a relative measure. (I am sure you have heard about the Flynn Effect.)

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

“I highly doubt anyone would attempt to define a racial group on the basis of one trait as you have just done.

But as J. Philippe Rushton would argue:”

Frank, I am trying to make the points
1> The only important traits aren’t superficial ones like skin colour, or shape of eyes. For example, individuals belonging two different species can look remarkably similar. I remember reading about these two fishes who are so similar that you can’t even differentiate between them with the naked eye without expertise ; yet, they belong to different species.

The geographically determined traits are only a small fraction of the total number of traits. And even those traits are not completely distinct between two randomly selected groups.
The genetic difference between a white and a black person can be easily less than that between two white people.

2>While there are geographically classifiable traits, they vary on a continuum into little groups and not discretely as white, black, chinese etc. In other words the above classification is one of convention and not one of need.

Also, I find it funny that you repeatedly repeat Rushton’s comments.
Rushton’s sources have been questioned again and again. I think EJay has also pointed that out. He doesn’t even have a degree in genetics. He isn’t even a qualified biologist.

“Of course in contrast he completely ignores the 60 established largely inheritable traits provided by the opposition. ”
Actually the word heritable only makes sense with reference to the environments in which it has been tested and by default you can only control environment to a limited extent. Because of this fact and because genes and environment interact, some people avoid using the word heritable altogether.

For example, height is considered a highly heritable trait. But James Flynn points out that after WW2 ended the average height of Japanese male was merely 5 feet 1 or 2 inches. Now it’s about 5 inches more. But the small amount of immigrant population is clearly unable to explain it.

Also, even assuming the heritability of the 60 traits, and even assuming his data is correct, Rushton only takes the average of groups that he chooses by convention. I don’t really get what average brain size has to do with race. Why is it even necessary to measure the brain size of a group and take its average? If I want bigger brains then why not simply select those who have bigger brains?

“Second, what is with the respectable comment? I have produced numerous genetic maps, studies and research conclusions from medical researchers not to mention forensic experts who support the existence of race. Are they not respectable because they support your friend Jays perspective ?”
There are also some doctors who believe in religious gods. That doesn’t make it a majority opinion in the scientific community.
Most people in the field of biology DO NOT support the notion of biological races. This should not be confused with the fact that one CAN make useful classifications that can help in forensics.

Most people popularizing the notion of races are psychologists and social-scientists. Richard Feynman compared them to “witch doctors”. That doesn’t make them wrong, but definitely less credible.
One of the few respected racist comment that I have heard is that by Watson. But the actual comment was actually quite vague and it was never clear what exactly he meant. (But even if Watson really meant it in a racial manner, that will still place him in the minority.)

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Notice first of all that Frank does not list these 60 traits he claims are heritable. It’s very likely that he hasn’t even seen the list himself. He just takes Rushton’s word that such a list exists and that the data supporting the continuum is reliable.

Frank instead chooses to focus on one variable listed by Rushton, that being twinning rates. He completely misrepresents the source provided by MacEachern. Infact MacEachern sent me three sources supporting the overall point made in an earlier email I posted which is that traits like twinning rates, rather than being evolutionarily determined are sensitive to historical contingency over short time-scales.

The stats he cites are not even based on reported stats from the study in question but but from much older, outdated studies referenced by MacEachern’s source in order to address a larger issue. Readers can look up the sources provided by MacEachern for themselves:

As far as credible sources that dispute Graves arguments are concerned there is a difference between recognizing a credible source and conceding and argument.

Rushton is simply not a credible source on human evolution, Frank, yet you see fit to continue citing him in debates to support arguments concerning race and human evolution. Calling scholars names does nothing for the credibility of your argument. All of my sources are qualified to speak on issues I have cited them on and more importantly you haven’t provided credible sources that directly dispute their assertions, with the possible exception of
David C Rowe’s book review.

But linking to a book review and then saying a scholar has been refuted is not an argument. Why no try listing specific arguments you’d like to make based on the review? Not only is JewAmongYou not qualified to speak on anything related to this topic but I actually did respond (not “poo poo’d”) to specific points of his that you brought up in our debate.

I’m pointing this out because you criticized AB for ignoring research that hasn’t even been provided which comes from a source who has no credibility to speak on the topic and was refuted.

And I use the word refuted because the critiques of his work in question come from authority who have provided conclusive evidence that Rushton is wrong. If it was a dispute you’d be able to find a counter source of equal authority that disputes the conclusions of Graves and MacEachern but none exists.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: Also, I find it funny that you repeatedly repeat Rushton’s comments.Rushton’s sources have been questioned again and again. I think EJay has also pointed that out. He doesn’t even have a degree in genetics. He isn’t even a qualified biologist.

FRANK: His statement is absolutely correct AB. His statement is also supported by logician and philosopher Neven Sesardic who addressed similar Diamond-type arguments:

“It is interesting that none of these sources cites any empirical evidence for these race-undermining claims. Furthermore, these claims clearly go against the entrenched common sense belief that racial recognition is not actually based on a single trait (like skin color) but rather on a number of characteristics that are to a certain extent concordant and that jointly make the classiﬁcation not only possible but fairly reliable as well (a point that Diamond himself actually acknowledges sotto voce but which, buried at the end of his article, has been completely lost on most
readers amidst his thundering denunciations of the race concept)

Worse still, forensic anthropologists are quite successful in correctly inferring a person’s race from the skeletal characteristics of human remains, impossible if the statements in the above quotations were true.”

AB: For example, height is considered a highly heritable trait. But James Flynn points out that after WW2 ended the average height of Japanese male was merely 5 feet 1 or 2 inches. Now it’s about 5 inches more. But the small amount of immigrant population is clearly unable to explain it.

FRANK: Only a fool would take a single trait and attempt to build a race around this single trait. As explained again by Sesardic, racial recognition actually requires more than one trait similarity to make a solid near error-free classification:

“Indeed, a quick look into the literature conﬁrms this. For instance, a study that covered 17 populations over the world and that relied on 34 different measurements managed to assign 98% of the specimens to their correct major racial group (Brues 1990, 6).

Another more recent study had a success rate of 80% in distinguishing between American Whites and Blacks, although it used just two variables. With seven variables, however, it reached the reliability of 95%, and with 19 variables the probability of correct classiﬁcation rose to 97% (Ousley et al. 2009).

Also, estimating generally the reliability of attributing a given data point to one of the ﬁve racial categories, another team of experts calculated that under some realistic conditions it is sufﬁcient to use as few as 13 characteristics to have the posterior probability of the correct classiﬁcation attain the value of 99% (Konigsberg et al. 2009).

The empirical reality appears to refute decisively the claim so conﬁdently advocated by many philosophers that ‘‘as the number of traits increases, racial classiﬁcation becomes increasingly difﬁcult’’ (Andreasen 2004, 428), or that ‘‘multiplying phenotypic racial traits has the result … that … they correlate with one another in no particular order, throwing the alleged features for biological racial reality into an unorganized mess’’ (Glasgow 2009, 88). This is exactly backwards: multiplying relevant phenotypic racial traits brings more order and structure, and indeed lays ground for an objective biological classiﬁcation”

AB: Most people in the field of biology DO NOT support the notion of biological races. This should not be confused with the fact that one CAN make useful classifications that can help in forensics.

Again, this is an appeal to anonymous authority. However, even if polls supported that view I cannot help but hear the words of Anthropologist Henry Harpending (2000):

“Dominant public ideology these days is that race
is a “social construct” and that there are no meaningful biological differences among human groups. In a similar way Marxism was the dominant public ideology behind the Iron Curtain until the fall of the Soviet empire, after which it became apparent that no one really believed it. What do Americans really think about race, race differences, and public position that there are no races

My own informal impression is that there are three widely shared viewpoints about the issue of race and human differences. No one really knows: a poll about views of
race would be like a poll about Marxism in East Germany in 1980. Everyone would lie. What I see in my own informal survey is probably as good as anything available”

AB: One of the few respected racist comment that I have heard is that by Watson. But the actual comment was actually quite vague and it was never clear what exactly he meant. (But even if Watson really meant it in a racial manner, that will still place him in the minority.)

FRANK: So we ignore any evidence that you dislike because you have set up this belief that the majority of scientists will not agree with them?

Imagine how many people would die if we allowed people like you to dictate policy to the medical profession.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB,

I should point out that Watson’s statements on African intelligence were not based on his own research but on reading a book by Richard Lynn, one of the aforementioned “witch doctors” with a degree in Psychology. If you go to my Youtube channel and watch Race: Science’s Last Taboo this is mentioned. Watson actually declined an interview with the host admitting that he was not qualified to speak on intelligence testing.

Watson did give an interview with Henry Louis Gates Jr. which I have tried to track down but he wasn’t able to make any scientific points. All he did is speculate on the ramifications of his opinion being true.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: Notice first of all that Frank does not list these 60 traits he claims are heritable. It’s very likely that he hasn’t even seen the list himself. He just takes Rushton’s word that such a list exists and that the data supporting the continuum is reliable.

FRANK: Because this is a common tactic you use Jay. You demand that your opposition go through every variable listed in Rushtons evolutionary work from the 90’s to 2011 and then to present them.

Of course, if Jay has read Rushtons works he already knows them. However, should his gullible victim take the hour or two to collect the information he will utlimately ignore it and simply respond with some pre-selected cut and paste he has stored on his computer.

He tries to wear the opposition down with this tactic…

EGALITARIAN JAY: Frank instead chooses to focus on one variable listed by Rushton, that being twinning rates. He completely misrepresents the source provided by MacEachern. Infact MacEachern sent me three sources supporting the overall point made in an earlier email I posted which is that traits like twinning rates, rather than being evolutionarily determined are sensitive to historical contingency over short time-scales.

FRANK: I not only debated Jay on this issue but I destroyed him in the debate on the issue. Morpheus presented the most recent and credible source provided to him by Scott MacEachern. The other sources deal essentially with the variations to the rule.

Jay argues that nothing I have provided disproves MacEacherns claims. However, this is yet another one of Jay’s tactics. He simply ignores what he does not like and declares his source not refuted because he does not like the counterview.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

The whole argument seems to be about this g factor. However, this g factor is closely related to working memory and can be improved. The article can be translated to- blacks have shown much greater gains in abstract pattern recognition than working memory. Working memory trainings like dual n-back trainings have shown to improve gf and IQ. It seems to be more like muscle. In article itself they explained in the conclusion section that they were unable to explain certain g gains and blamed it on nutrition and pre-natal environment.

Flynn also made a reply to that argument.To the contrary, as Flynn argues in his response (see: http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn2010a.pdf), the fact that blacks have shown greater gains on easier tasks than on those of more cognitive complexity (g-loaded), is explained just as well (perhaps better) by the environmental hypothesis as by the hereditarian position

Like I said already, working memory is not the only component of IQ and not even the most important one. Ericsson-Chaness have argued that working memory isn’t even very import for high achievements because limitations of WM capacity and reaction time can be overcome by systemic training.For example, a professional locksmith with lesser working memory will never forget the shape of a key, but an untrained high WM is likely to.

And of course, like I said , heritability is not a valid concept unless environment is taken into account. Nor does average differences actually mean anything.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: I should point out that Watson’s statements on African intelligence were not based on his own research but on reading a book by Richard Lynn, one of the aforementioned “witch doctors” with a degree in Psychology. If you go to my Youtube channel and watch Race: Science’s Last Taboo this is mentioned. Watson actually declined an interview with the host admitting that he was not qualified to speak on intelligence testing.

Watson did give an interview with Henry Louis Gates Jr. which I have tried to track down but he wasn’t able to make any scientific points. All he did is speculate on the ramifications of his opinion being true.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Frank,

All I asked you for was a list of these 60 traits so we can verify what sort of evidence you are presenting. Providing a link with the citations supporting those sources would also be helpful. If they were available online it would be very easy to simply provide a link. This is not an unreasonable request.

I have read several of Rushton’s articles in PDF format and never seen this vaunted list of 60 Life-History variables. I assume they are in Rushton’s book but have not had a chance to read the book. How can you criticize someone for ignoring sources you can’t even show them and possibly haven’t even seen yourself?

Your Phora links are simply a rehash of the same fallacious arguments. Again neither Rushton nor any of the sources you cited provided evidence that twinning rate patterns are evolutionarily determined. Being influenced by genetics is not them same thing as patterns being determined by evolutionary differences between races.

Rushton’s evolutionary arguments were refuted by Graves, MacEachern and others.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: The whole argument seems to be about this g factor. However, this g factor is closely related to working memory and can be improved.

FRANK: “g-factor” is merely general mental ability. On tests that have greater g-loadings the gap has not decreased. On tests where general mental ability is not the forefront of testing, the gap has not increased. The g-gains are not illustrated by the tests taken apart by Jensen in this correlated vectors.

Now you are correct when you point out that even g-loaded tests can be beaten. As Rushton points out:

Heritable g is at the core of the debate over how much the
mean Black–White gap in IQ and school achievement is due to the genes rather than to the environment, and therefore, how much it can be expected to narrow. While g and genetic
estimates correlate signiﬁcantly positively with Black–White
differences 0.61 and 0.48 (Pb0.001), they correlate signiﬁcantly negatively (or not at all) with the secular gains (r=−0.33; Pb0.001) and 0.13 (ns). Similarly, g loadings and heritabilities from the items of the Raven Matrices correlate signiﬁcantly positively with each other and with Black–White differences (mean r= 0.74, Pb0.01). Although the secular gains are on gloaded tests (such as the Wechsler), they are negatively correlated with the most g-loaded components of those tests.

Tests lose their g loadedness over time as the result of training, retesting, and familiarity (te Nijenhuis et al., 2007)

You are letting your personal feelings towards a scholar degrade the quality of discussion. The Admin has already warned both of us about personal attacks so why not attempt to keep the exchange civil? Criticizing a scholar is one thing.
Childish insults and name-calling is another.

MacEachern is not a Psychologist or Psychometrician and made no critiques of IQ tests themselves but rather the evolutionary, biological and historical arguments that Rushton and his colleagues are trying to draw from IQ testing.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY:Your responses regarding MacEachern are becoming increasingly hostile and juvenile. It appears that you are still upset that he dismissed you as a two-bit racist when you challenged him to a debate.

FRANK: Actually, I saw his behaviour as an act of cowardice which I explained to you in the next post:

You are correct on one issue. My personal feelings toward the man border on contempt because I view MacEachern as intellectually gutless.

I do not like people like that Jay.

EGALITARIAN JAY: You are letting your personal feelings towards a scholar degrade the quality of discussion. The Admin has already warned both of us about personal attacks so why not attempt to keep the exchange civil? Criticizing a scholar is one thing. Childish insults and name-calling is another.

FRANK: While I admire your new-found civility, I have not called you any names. In addition, I find your criticism most perplexing as you have insulted off-forum parties and scientists that you do not like:

EgalitarianJay... says:

FRANK: The great modern chicken never sent me anything Jay! He sent YOU the emails to debate me while he refused to debate me personally one on one…

EgalitarianJay: Actually I was referring to the email Rushton sent you which MacEachern responded to.

FRANK: You are correct on one issue. My personal feelings toward the man border on contempt because I view MacEachern as intellectually gutless

EgalitarianJay: In MacEachern’s defense I should point out that he has actually debated Rushton and like-minded colleagues himself. He is certainly not gutless. Taking time out of your day to reply to someone who has read your work and has questions and registering on a message board to debate someone for 20+ pages are two different things.

As a professional scholar it’s likely that MacEachern did not have time for that style of debate.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

EGALITARIAN JAY: In MacEachern’s defense I should point out that he has actually debated Rushton and like-minded colleagues himself. He is certainly not gutless. Taking time out of your day to reply to someone who has read your work and has questions and registering on a message board to debate someone for 20+ pages are two different things.

FRANK: A man who is willing to back up his big mouth in 1999 hardly indicates intellectual courage in the modern day.

This gutless clown stuck his nose in my debate with you, actively helped you, insulted me and then suddenly decided
he was too good to debate me when I called him to a formal one on one debate.

Now, I could be mistaken in my assessment if he was unaware that you were publicly posting his emails to a publicly accessible forum like the phora and had no idea that those emails were becoming part of the debate.

EGALITARIAN JAY: As a professional scholar it’s likely that MacEachern did not have time for that style of debate.

Frank says:

I just think that what happened to Watson was wrong in the sense that he should have the freedom to speak his mind.

BTW, do you know what exactly did Watson say in that interview?

FRANK: He said that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” {…} “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

It took MacEachern 4 days to respond to just one of my emails. Our debates on the Phora often spanned 20+ pages at a time and MacEachern was aware of this. It’s perfectly rational that he would not have time for that style of debate.

AB says:

AB says:

Yes, I am aware of that argument.
That argument basically says that intelligent people may have the genetic component to look for or to seek out intellectually stimulating environment.

But the problem with that argument is that not everyone may have the option of choosing an intellectually stimulating environment. If you are born in a poor and uneducated family, you may not have the opportunities to seek out an an intellectually stimulating environment.

So unless there is a level playing field, this argument has no place. And of course, genes and environment interact. Some genes may get turned on only under certain environments.

Also, it does not in any way negate my original argument that “heritability” is a meaningless concept unless the environment in which it has been tested is properly defined.

EgalitarianJay... says:

Like or Dislike: 00

To answer your question Watson didn’t say anything of substance whatsoever. He basically told Gates that he wasn’t threatened by racialist research because the more we learn about human nature the more capable we are of helping people.

They talked about different issues surrounding the Race and Intelligence debate but not about the actual science. Watson did say that he would not be gloomy about Africa if Africans could be educated but suspected that different groups of people had different talents and used African-American success at Basketball as an example.

I do want to upload the interview so people can hear Watson in his own words. Also I found out that Graves was interviewed on CNN (Anderson Cooper 360) for their segment on the controversy over Watson’s comments.

I have not seen that interview but the transcript is available online. I am going to see if I can get footage of both interviews.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Calling the “g” factor “general mental ability” is a fancy way of deceiving general public. The g factor is basically related with the number of variables one can hold in mind while calculating. It’s very closely related to working memory , executive function etc. And I already pointed out that WM is neither immutable, nor are the limits of WM important because experts can overcome the limits of WM and reaction time. A chess expert with limited WM can still play blindfold chess, something even extremely high WM holders struggle to do without proper training.

Even in the test on “g” loaded questions the gap has decreased, but to a much lesser extent. And I have already pointed out that Flynn has himself responded by saying that more gains on less g-loaded questions compared to more g-loaded ones can also be explained by environment.

I have already pointed out that appeals to heritability is a fallacy in itself(along with Flynn’s example of Japanese height). I have also pointed out that average scores don’t mean anything, and it means even less if you don’t take into consideration the environmental factors. There is a big gap between the average cognitively demanding environment of black and whites.

Frank says:

AB: So unless there is a level playing field, this argument has no place. And of course, genes and environment interact. Some genes may get turned on only under certain environments.

FRANK: Actually, the environmental playing fields were evened out during the Minnesota Trans-racial adoption studies. The evened out environment demonstrated two very telling results. The IQ’s of all groups increased during the environmentally sensitive child years but regressed toward their means by age 17.

In fact all such studies with an adult follow up segment illustrate a similar pattern. Flynn discovered that black youth were scoring higher on tests than they use too but he also noted that the IQ’s scores regressed as they aged. By age 24 the black IQ was 83.4.

SImilar studies of Asian youth, from poor backgrounds, illustrated a similar trend. They averaged IQ’s closest to their means despite their malnourished history.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: Calling the “g” factor “general mental ability” is a fancy way of deceiving general public. The g factor is basically related with the number of variables one can hold in mind while calculating. It’s very closely related to working memory , executive function etc.

FRANK: You simply do not grasp the meaning of the term. G-factor or general intelligence tests generally involves visual and abstract reasoning. They are designed to measure intellectual ability in favour of skilled sets involved in other tests.

It is true that some g-loaded tests can be beaten as people take the tests repeatedly and remember the wrong vs right answers. However, as Rushton pointed out even when blacks somewhat improved on the g-loaded tests, they still did relatively poorly on the most g-loaded portions of testing.

To make matters worse regarding Flynn is he actually omitted some g-loaded tests that would have harmed his case.

AB: I have already pointed out that appeals to heritability is a fallacy in itself(along with Flynn’s example of Japanese height).

FRANK: You introduced a red herring in an attempt to disprove something entirely different.

“The g factor has a normal distribution in the general population, suggesting g is probably a product of several genes that interact with the environment. Moreover, although g correlates with the parental value, it has a tendency to be closer to the population mean, suggesting a regression to the mean. These observations suggest that some genetic variants that influence g will vary between populations rather than within populations. For instance, certain Asian populations have a frequency of 0.60 in COMT Met158 allele, which predicts lower COMT-enzyme activity and thereby better cognitive performance, while Caucasians have a frequency of 0.42 for the same allele”

Dr Seuss says:

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

It’s like I am going in circles. It’s like I just have to repeat myself over and over.

I never denied that there are geographically separable genetic traits. I argued that that does not define race as we do in our society – “whites”, “blacks”, “east-asians” etc. Those are races by social conventions, not out of biological necessity.
One can randomly isolate geographic regions into groups and with 17 different different variables, one is bound to have some success in classifying them. It does not have to be “whites” , “blacks” etc. The particular classification used (whites, blacks, east-asians etc) is one of social convention. I bet that with 17 different variables one can make several successful classifications within Africa itself.

I also argued that these geographically separable traits are not necessarily the most important ones. And a white can be genetically more distant to a white than a black.

Not just Rushton’s logic, I actually said that his sources- how he collects data and applies them – has been questioned repeatedly.
I will repeat again that the existence of a small number of geographically classifiable genetic traits does not prove race to be anything other a social construct.

It’s very important that people who dictate medical policy are like me because if you treat a person not based on individual profile but based on group correlations, then while majority will be treated correctly, many people will be die because of obvious mistreatments and misdiagnoses that are the results of false generalizations and which can be avoided otherwise.

And finally I want to touch upon heritability. I used that example of Japanese height as example of how ideas about heritability can mislead us.
The marathon people in Kenya actually live in high altitudes and have to run a lot from early age to save money. Nobody can convincingly argue that that does not have an effect on both anatomy and epigenetics.
Brain size is considered heritable. London Taxi drivers literally grow their brains as they train for it. It has now been proven that adults can grow new brain cells. Google “neurogenesis”.
Bone density is another trait. People in space lose their bone density. Yet coming back to earth, they gain it back.
Buddhist meditation has actually shown to change the brain waves to become more compassionate – so there goes genetic morality out of the window.
Also, in Venezuela, introduction of chess to school children improved their IQs by few points compared to those who didn’t take chess sessions. This must be an increase in “g’ factor, because they did not train for IQ tests. The result was so successful that nearly all schools in Venezuela started to apply it. And of course training in WM games like dual-n-back has shown improvements in fluid intelligence or “g”.

If you want to really want to see if the “g” factor can be changed, then you have to be honest with yourself. You have to actually train deprived people in many different ways, create an environment where they are forced to be cognitively aware (similar to how high altitude forces an increase in stamina), give them good nutrition and stress free environment during conception in the womb. You also have to maintain that environment for several generations. (remember that due to epigenetics, your health can be affected by the life-style of your grandfather).
Only after all that can you conclude that “it’s difficult” if you don’t get any positive results. You still can’t conclude that “it’s impossible” because the environment can be changed in an endless variety of ways.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Actually, in the last post (which was a reply to a comment on pase 5) I described what a level playing field actually means..

Actually this has been brought up many times. If you intervene early, both blacks and whites improve their IQs, but the black IQs start to drop after the program ends but still ends up slightl;y greater than average blacks in adulthood .

Most people forget that these intervening programs last for about 100 hours. IQ is a relative term, so you have to keep up the intellectual stimulation so else you keep dropping on a relative scale.
Neither 100 hour programs, nor inter-racial adoption levels the playing field. I described what it means in my last post and what you can actually conclude.

As for the Minnesota studies. It has been interpreted in many ways. Firstly, people who actually did the study actually considered racial IQ differences to be inconclusive. It was pointed out that these adopted blacks still did better than non-adopted ones, even in adulthood. It was pointed out that earlier adoptions resulted in greater gains.They drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of “socially classified” black children was greater than the U.S. white mean. The followup data was collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992 and interpreted their results still supporting the original conclusions.

Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: “[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers.Willerman and his colleagues suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one

I have also seen racial studies where blacks were shown to have gained significantly, in some case even slightly outperforming whites, but those studies are often conveniently avoided or described as flawed because the population “must not have been random”.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: As for the Minnesota studies. It has been interpreted in many ways. Firstly, people who actually did the study actually considered racial IQ differences to be inconclusive. It was pointed out that these adopted blacks still did better than non-adopted ones, even in adulthood. It was pointed out that earlier adoptions resulted in greater gains.They drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of “socially classified” black children was greater than the U.S. white mean. The followup data was collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992 and interpreted their results still supporting the original conclusions.

FRANK: What you neglected to mention is that researchers themselves held an environmental bias. In 1998 Sandra Scarr wrote:

“The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions.”

Richard Lynn also pointed out that the information actually helped the position of Jensen which is something I contend as well…

AB: Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: “[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers.Willerman and his colleagues suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one

FRANK: This is where you seem to be missing the boat. Nowhere do I state that environmental factors play a part in IQ development.

However, there are serious issues with the 100% environmental position on the issue:

1) Mulatto children mistaken for black children scored in the middle of the black and white children. They would have faced the same social discrimination as the black kids. The only noted difference between the two groups was the level of European ancestry.

As Rushton points out…

The well-known Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study found that Mixed-Race (Black-White) adoptees averaged IQ scores between those of White and Black adoptees (Scarr & Weinberg, 1976; Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992). All children were adopted into upper middle-class White families in Minnesota by parents whose mean IQ was more than 115. The study thus removed the most frequently proposed causal agents of racial IQ diﬀerences such as poverty, malnutrition, poor schools, and dysfunctional neighborhoods. The children (N = 265) were ﬁrst
tested in 1975 when they were 7-years-old and the 196 remaining children were tested again in 1986 when they were 17-years-old. The 7-year-old White biological (i.e., non-adopted) children had an average IQ of 117, the adopted children with two White biological parents, 112; the
Mixed-Race children, 109; and the adopted children with two Black biological parents, 97. At age 17, the non-adopted White children had an average IQ of 109 and a class rank at the 64th percentile; the adopted children with two White biological parents had an IQ of 106 and a class
rank at the 54th percentile; the Mixed-Race children had an IQ of 99 and a class rank at the 40th percentile; and the adopted children with two Black biological parents had an IQ of 89 and a class rank at the 36th percentile. Expectancy eﬀects were ruled out, at least at age 7, by the ﬁnding that
the mean score for 12 children wrongly believed by their adoptive parents to have two Black biological parents was no diﬀerent from that of 56 children correctly classiﬁed by their adoptive parents as having one Black and one White biological parent (Scarr & Weinberg, 1976).

2) The increase and regression toward the mean was universal amongst all groups. This is a rather surprising result when one one group was allegedly victimized by poor prenatal care and social discrimination.

The adopted White children lost 11 points by age 17, the black adopted children only lost 6 points by age 17. If we use the corrected numbers by Loehlin adopted White children lost 10 points by age 17 while adopted black children lost 8 points by age 17.

Non-adopted white children saw similar regressions of 7 points from age 7 to age 17…

AB: I have also seen racial studies where blacks were shown to have gained significantly, in some case even slightly outperforming whites, but those studies are often conveniently avoided or described as flawed because the population “must not have been random”.

FRANK: The problem with those studies is they tend to be use young children as subjects without having follow-up studies when they progress into adulthood.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: It’s very important that people who dictate medical policy are like me because if you treat a person not based on individual profile but based on group correlations, then while majority will be treated correctly, many people will be die because of obvious mistreatments and misdiagnoses that are the results of false generalizations and which can be avoided otherwise.

FRANK: This is exactly why people like you should never be allowed to even have a say on medical policy. Because you based your position on ideology rather than science. The reality is “race is a useful tool” in medicine according to Dr. Sharonne Hayes, cardiologist and director of diversity at the Mayo Clinic.

Could you imagine the effects on psychiatric medicine if we gave people like you a say on the issue:

“Almost every day at the Washington drug clinic where I work as a psychiatrist, race plays a useful diagnostic role. When I prescribe Prozac to a patient who is African-American, I start at a lower dose, 5 or 10 milligrams instead of the usual 10-to-20 milligram dose. I do this in part because clinical experience and pharmacological research show that blacks metabolize antidepressants more slowly than Caucasians and Asians. As a result, levels of the medication can build up and make side effects more likely. To be sure, not every African-American is a slow metabolizer of antidepressants; only 40 percent are. But the risk of provoking side effects like nausea, insomnia or fuzzy-headedness in a depressed person — someone already terribly demoralized who may have been reluctant to take medication in the first place — is to worsen the patient’s distress and increase the chances that he will flush the pills down the toilet. So I start all black patients with a lower dose, then take it from there.

In my drug-treatment clinic, where almost all of the patients use heroin by injection, a substantial number of them have hepatitis C, an infectious blood-borne virus that now accounts for 40 percent of all chronic liver disease. The standard treatment for active hepatitis C is an antiviral-drug combination of alpha interferon and ribavirin. But for some as yet undiscovered reason, African-Americans do not respond as well as whites to this regimen. In white patients, the double therapy reduces the amount of virus in the blood by over 90 percent after six months of treatment. In blacks, the reduction is only 50 percent. As a result, my black patients with hepatitis C must be given a considerably less reassuring prognosis than my white patients.”

SOURCE: I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor – The New York Times | May 5, 2002 – By Sally L. Satel

AB: Also, in Venezuela, introduction of chess to school children improved their IQs by few points compared to those who didn’t take chess sessions. This must be an increase in “g’ factor, because they did not train for IQ tests. The result was so successful that nearly all schools in Venezuela started to apply it. And of course training in WM games like dual-n-back has shown improvements in fluid intelligence or “g”.

FRANK: Prof. Arthur Jensen said he could raise a child’s IQ by merely playing with him. Of course, this is no surprise as a child’s brain is elastic and developing. The g factor plays a role when the child’s brain is developed.

One of the reasons it is silly to draw a conclusion on general intelligence on child subjects is that the brain is more open to environmental stimuli and has not regressed to its general mean. This is why scholars like Rushton call for conclusions based on initial studies and follow up studies in adulthood.

Your entire premise is ridiculous. To argue that this increase must be due to “g” instead of the normal child elasticity found in early intellectual development is outright fallacious and unfounded.

“General intelligence is an important human quantitative trait that accounts for much of the variation in diverse cognitive abilities. Individual differences in intelligence are strongly associated with many important life outcomes, including educational and occupational attainments, income, health and lifespan. Data from twin and family studies are consistent with a high heritability of intelligence, but this inference has been controversial. We conducted a genome-wide analysis of 3511 unrelated adults with data on 549,692 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and detailed phenotypes on cognitive traits. We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants. These estimates provide lower bounds for the narrow-sense heritability of the traits. We partitioned genetic variation on individual chromosomes and found that, on average, longer chromosomes explain more variation. Finally, using just SNP data we predicted ∼1% of the variance of crystallized and fluid cognitive phenotypes in an independent sample (P=0.009 and 0.028, respectively). Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.

AB says:

AB says:

“You simply do not grasp the meaning of the term. G-factor or general intelligence tests generally involves visual and abstract reasoning”

Actually, I understand perfectly what g-factor is.
It’s those questions that tax working memory the most and are most likely to eliminate the benefits of “knowledge” that is culturally biased.

For example, progressive matrices are less culturally biased because of visual and abstract nature of questions. And the more g-loaded ones rely on more complex calculations that tax more working memory.

“g” is not dependant on knowledge or “test taking skills”, that’s why it is the hardest to change and that’s also the reason why racists love it. BUT, it can still be trained like muscle strength can be increased.

Also, Flynn merely pointed out that there has been gains in g-loaded questions too. He did not need to include all the results, because that part was sufficient to prove his point.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

May be I will remove the links.

And let me tell you , similar phenotype can be produced by different genes .
The converse is also true. Same genotype can produce different phenotypehttp://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/4/510
One gene can be expressed differently and produce slightly different proteins.
Also, similar proteins/enzymes can be produced by distinct genes.

So that little thing means nothing, really.

Let me give you another example. The “red hair” is universally accepted as a geographically determined trait. Yet, the protein that produces red hair is nearly identical to the one that universally produces red lips.

And even if ON THE AVERAGE one group does have a genetic advantage, that still doesn’t mean anything related to race. It’s much more important to identify the individual with a trait, than to identify a group that’s “more likely” to have a trait.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

That doesn’t change the fact that the results were inconclusive to say that least. You are merely presenting one side of the argument.

There is no such study that shows 100% genetic, or even mostly genetic. Even the poorly designed Scarr & Weinberg 1976 study, showed that blacks and mixed-race children adopted in Minnesota white homes, had IQ scores 1 SD above the mean of the IQ average of black children raised in the typical Negro Minnesota home. When they were retested 10 years later, only 196 of the original 265 children remained as part of the study (mostly lower IQ whites dropped out), and a different IQ test was used, but even then, it still showed higher scores for Negroes and mulattoes than the black mean. Even the authors of the study admit to the many confounding factors, such as the varying pre-adoptive environments of the participants, for example, the poorer placement of the Blacks, and even the mixed race groups, as compared to white adoptees, or that the Blacks were adopted significantly later than the other two groups, or that the IQ of the natural parents of the adoptees was unknown, etc. The only thing the Scarr study might have demonstrated is that enhancing the environment can improve IQ scores.

The only other major transracial adoption study, Elsie Moore’s well-designed 1986 study, eliminated the many confounding factors found in Scarr & Weinberg’s earlier study by keeping certain variables constant. It was designed to study blacks and mulattoes raised in black middle-class homes, as compared to blacks and mulattoes raised in white middle-class homes. The results were devastating for HBD. All groups were tested with the WISC between 7 and 10 years of age. There was no difference in the IQs between blacks and mulattoes raised in middle class black homes, nor between blacks and mulattoes raised in the white middle class homes. The average IQ of the blacks raised in middle class homes was 103.6, over 1SD higher than mean IQ of Negroes. The average IQ of the blacks raised in white middle class homes however, was a whopping 117.1! This study would be the definitive case for the environmental hypothesis but for its sample size (46 subjects), and the one confounding factor of not knowing the IQs of the natural parents of the adoptees.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Flynn has also addressed Jensen’s flawed arguments.

Flynn was referring to the 1.33 SD change in IQ (on Raven’s Progressive Matrices) of the Dutch from 1952 to 1982 (not the entire 20th century). Using Jensen’s own argument, the cognitive environment of the Dutch in 1952 would have to be 4 SD [4 X .33 (the correlation between environment & IQ) = 4] below the average cognitive environment of the Dutch in 1982. As this is highly implausible, either the large gap must be due to some mysterious “factor X” (since significant genetic enhancement in that 30 year period is demonstrably false), or Jensen’s argument is very weak. Hence, the Flynn effect shows that Jensen’s claim that for the environmental hypothesis to account for the 1SD black-white IQ gap would require that the black cognitive environment be 3 SD below the white cognitive environment (3 X .33 = 1) or, evading this, caused by some factor X “hidden institutional racism,” is a red herring and therefore, it fails to support his inference from this that the gap must be due to genetics. FE demonstrates that no matter how high you push the heritability estimate of IQ (.80 in Jensen’s speculation, .50 for IQ and .60 for g posited by most experts), even moderate changes in environment can result in large gains in IQ over time.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Finally, after removing most of the links and two hours of struggle, my comment gets posted.
Frank , here is the reply to last two comments of yours. I see you are doing nothing more than repeating yourself with the support of few people who think along your lines.

I even agreed with most of your “facts”, I disagreed with conclusions that your are drawing.

However, I have yet to see you addressing the logical points I made. For example,

1> Why should group results even be important if we can see individual results? Would you pick a 4 feet black person for your basketball team over a 6.5 feet white? Generalizing too much in medicine can kill. I already pointed that out.
Why is the frequency of a gene in a “race” more important than if an individual has it, if that frequency is not even anything like 99%.

2> I already agreed that geographical classifications can be done and in some areas like forensics – it can still serve as a “useful tool”. But I pointed out that that still makes the notion of “white” and “black” social constructs since classifications can be done in other ways, even geographically. That should be enough to put “race” to bed.

3>I already pointed out that the concept of heritability can be very misleading explaining the complex interplay of various genes, epigenome and environment. You are yet to reply to that.
I have pointed out ho many heritable traits are highly mutable.

4>I pointed out that IQ, or even “g” is not very important for high achievement – for example, chess experts can overcome the limitations of G. Plenty of high achievers have only slightly above IQ including several nobel lauretes, inventors, mathematicians, chess players, physicists, putnam fellows etc.
For example, contrary to popular myths, Garry Kasparov’s IQ is 135(not 195), Feynman’s 123 and Einstein never took a test and Poincare did poorly in IQ tests, so did the inventor of transistors.
And if with proper environment we can raise the IQ of anyone to 115 range, why should it matter?

5>If two whites can easily be more genetically different than a white and black, then why are only geographic traits given so much importance?

I have wasted my last few days repeating myself. I have other things to do than commenting here.
Since I have already made my point and since I don’t think I can change your mind this is likely to be my last post in this section.
I once told admin that I will try and stay away from this section and I will try to do that from now on.

“a child’s brain is elastic and developing. The g factor plays a role when the child’s brain is developed. ”
pure speculation and irrelevant to the topic of race.

AB says:

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: Flynn was referring to the 1.33 SD change in IQ (on Raven’s Progressive Matrices) of the Dutch from 1952 to 1982 (not the entire 20th century). Using Jensen’s own argument, the cognitive environment of the Dutch in 1952 would have to be 4 SD [4 X .33 (the correlation between environment & IQ) = 4] below the average cognitive environment of the Dutch in 1982. As this is highly implausible, either the large gap must be due to some mysterious “factor X” (since significant genetic enhancement in that 30 year period is demonstrably false), or Jensen’s argument is very weak. Hence, the Flynn effect shows that Jensen’s claim that for the environmental hypothesis to account for the 1SD black-white IQ gap would require that the black cognitive environment be 3 SD below the white cognitive environment (3 X .33 = 1) or, evading this, caused by some factor X “hidden institutional racism,” is a red herring and therefore, it fails to support his inference from this that the gap must be due to genetics. FE demonstrates that no matter how high you push the heritability estimate of IQ (.80 in Jensen’s speculation, .50 for IQ and .60 for g posited by most experts), even moderate changes in environment can result in large gains in IQ over time.

Frank: Actually, Jensens works seem to be confirmed by the Dutch studies….

A Jensen Effect for heritability has also been found, with
the g loadings from various subtests correlating with the
heritabilities of these same subtests (Jensen, 1998). A Jensen Effect for heritability provides biological evidence for a true genetic g, as opposed to the mere statistical reality of g. It makes problematic theories of intelligence that do not
include a general factor as an underlying biological variable,
but only explain the positive manifold, such as the model
proposed by Dickens and Flynn (2001), and the mutualism
model by van der Maas, Dolan, Grasman, Wicherts, Huizenga, and Raijmakers (2006)

Recent Jensen Effects for heritability come from two studies conducted in the Netherlands (Kan, Haring, Dolan, & van der Maas, 2009; van Bloois, Geujes, te Nijenhuis, & de
Pater, 2009). In a psychometric meta-analysis on 1512 twin
pairs, van Bloois et al. (2009) found a value of +1.01 for the estimated true correlation between g and heritability. In a reanalysis of the Raven Matrices data by Rushton, Bons, et al. (2007), we correlated the 36 item heritabilities on the
Colored Matrices (e.g., from twins reared together) and the
58 on the Standard Matrices (e.g., from the Minnesota Study
of Twins Reared Apart), with the item g loadings (e.g., from
the item-total scores) and found a mean r of 0.47 (Pb0.01).
Correcting the correlations raised the value from 0.55 to 1.00 (depending on whether using the test’s alpha coefﬁcient or the item’s test–retest correlation). Arranging the items into parcels also raised the original value (The item-level data are available on-line at the journal; Rushton, Bons, et al., 2007)

Rushton and Jensen also point out the flaws in the Flynn Effect defenses:

“That Black-White IQ differences are more pronounced on the more g loaded and more heritable components of tests does indeed imply the differences are partly genetic in origin.

However, it is a false claim that g and inbreeding depression correlate with the secular rise in IQ. We review the tortured history of this claim and in the process find we have eliminated the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect any narrowing of the Black-White differences.

The story begins with a 1972 study by Nichols [33] who
found a .67 correlation between 13 IQ test heritabilities and
the magnitude of Black-White differences on the same tests.
In 1973, Jensen [21] calculated environmentalities (defined
as the degree to which sibling correlations departed from the pure genetic expectation of .50) for 16 tests and found they were inversely related to Black-White differences on the
same tests (r = -.70). In 1989, Rushton [34] correlated inbreeding depression effects for 11 subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) with Black-White differences on the same tests in the US (r = .48; P < .05). Inbreeding depression, a purely genetic effect, occurs when offspring receive two copies of the same harmful recessive gene from each of their closely related parents. The inbreeding depression effects had been calculated by Schull and Neel [35] from 1,854 cousin marriages in Japan and showed a 5 point decrement (.33 SD) in the offspring. There is no explanation other than a genetic one for inbreeding depression.

With respect to the g factor, Jensen [22, pp. 369-379]
summarized 17 independent data sets of nearly 45,000
Blacks and 245,000 Whites derived from 149 psychometric
tests and found the g loadings of the subtests consistently
predicted the magnitude of the Black-White differences (r =
.62, P < .05). This was true even among 3-year-olds administered 8 subtests of the Stanford-Binet; the rank-order correlation between the g loadings and the Black-White differences being .71 (P < .05) [36]. In Hawaii, IQ differences between East Asians and Whites (favoring East Asians) were greater on the more g loaded of 15 subtests among people of Japanese, Chinese, and European ancestry [37]. In Zimbabwe, Rushton & Jensen [38] found 77% of the difference between Africans and Whites was due to g in a principal factor reanalysis of WISC-R data from 12- to 14-year-olds originally published by Zindi [39]. In South Africa, Rushton et al. [40, 41] found the differences between Black, South Asian, and White engineering students were greater on the more g loaded items from the Progressive Matrices

Frank says:

AB: Finally, after removing most of the links and two hours of struggle, my comment gets posted.

Frank , here is the reply to last two comments of yours. I see you are doing nothing more than repeating yourself with the support of few people who think along your lines.

I even agreed with most of your “facts”, I disagreed with conclusions that your are drawing.

However, I have yet to see you addressing the logical points I made. For example,

FRANK: The problem is I do not challenge much of your information. I am challenging your conclusions. Your logical arguments are you laughably call them are so ridiculous that they do not warrant a response…for example:

AB: I pointed out that IQ, or even “g” is not very important for high achievement – for example, chess experts can overcome the limitations of G. Plenty of high achievers have only slightly above IQ including several nobel lauretes, inventors, mathematicians, chess players, physicists, putnam fellows etc. For example, contrary to popular myths, Garry Kasparov’s IQ is 135(not 195), Feynman’s 123 and Einstein never took a test and Poincare did poorly in IQ tests, so did the inventor of transistors. And if with proper environment we can raise the IQ of anyone to 115 range, why should it matter?

FRANK: A person with an IQ of 135 is a genius or superior intellect by any IQ standard. Of course someone with an IQ of 135 is going to be a great success if they utilize their intellectual abilities. This would also apply to someone with an IQ of 123.

Einstein not taking an IQ test is meaningless to the debate as it proves neither point. The other scholar you mentioned lived in time where the Binet scales were being revised. He died a year prior to the revisions. So this does not prove anything either.

Now, you mention that IQ can be improved to 115. The problem is you neglect to realize that regression toward the mean takes place by late adolescents and early adulthood.

Your points are so ridiculous that they do not warrant a serious response.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

There is no such study that shows 100% genetic, or even mostly genetic. Even the poorly designed Scarr & Weinberg 1976 study, showed that blacks and mixed-race children adopted in Minnesota white homes, had IQ scores 1 SD above the mean of the IQ average of black children raised in the typical Negro Minnesota home. When they were retested 10 years later, only 196 of the original 265 children remained as part of the study (mostly lower IQ whites dropped out), and a different IQ test was used, but even then, it still showed higher scores for Negroes and mulattoes than the black mean. Even the authors of the study admit to the many confounding factors, such as the varying pre-adoptive environments of the participants, for example, the poorer placement of the Blacks, and even the mixed race groups, as compared to white adoptees, or that the Blacks were adopted significantly later than the other two groups, or that the IQ of the natural parents of the adoptees was unknown, etc. The only thing the Scarr study might have demonstrated is that enhancing the environment can improve IQ scores.

AB:The only other major transracial adoption study, Elsie Moore’s well-designed 1986 study, eliminated the many confounding factors found in Scarr & Weinberg’s earlier study by keeping certain variables constant. It was designed to study blacks and mulattoes raised in black middle-class homes, as compared to blacks and mulattoes raised in white middle-class homes. The results were devastating for HBD. All groups were tested with the WISC between 7 and 10 years of age. There was no difference in the IQs between blacks and mulattoes raised in middle class black homes, nor between blacks and mulattoes raised in the white middle class homes. The average IQ of the blacks raised in middle class homes was 103.6, over 1SD higher than mean IQ of Negroes. The average IQ of the blacks raised in white middle class homes however, was a whopping 117.1! This study would be the definitive case for the environmental hypothesis but for its sample size (46 subjects), and the one confounding factor of not knowing the IQs of the natural parents of the adoptees.

FRANK: How is it damaging to the non-zero BGH side?

1) The study was conducted on children without a following up component. You admitted yourself that the children were tested between 7 and 10 years of age while Flynn did not notice any regression until age 14.

2) The population sample size was minuscule and as you pointed out the IQ’s of the parents were not known. Yet for someone reason you quote this study as one that controlled the factors lacking in the MTRAS? Do you realize that these two monumental flaws in your study essentially kill its credibility?

3) The arguments against the MTRAS are quite silly as well. Did you know that the children adopted later in the study had a lesser regression toward the mean than those who were in longer. The number of children that did not show up for the follow up test actually benefited the black scores as the corrected scores offered by Loehlin reduced the black 17 year old score to 83.7 instead of the 89 score offered by the MTRAS. The nutrition arguments are equally silly as the environment actually proved beneficiary to the black youth. Weinberg and Scarr actually viewed the original results as prove of zero-BGH.

The problem is the researchers had an environmental bias and tried to explain away the problems as flaws in their own study. Even Scarr admits that they had an environmental bias going in which would explain why it took them so long to publish their results.

admin says:

@AB said: Finally, after removing most of the links and two hours of struggle, my comment gets posted.

I am sorry. Please post link collection is separate posts which then I can approve.

Unfortunately I turned off registration when hundreds of spam registrations happened. I think as registered user you could be allowed to post links. I think the links are the most interesting parts in everyone’s posts.

Below is an old study on yeasts proving that different genes can produce similar traits.

Also, similar proteins/enzymes can be produced by distinct genes.
I already pointed out the red-hair and red-lips connection.
I have already given a link for the converse: same gene producing different effects.
—–
I actually think that “whites” as a group might indeed have a small amount of genetic advantage on the average over “blacks”. I do believe, however, that environment can have a tremendous impact over generations. Studies related to epigenetics have shown that the lifestyle of your grandfather/grandmother can effect yours from the time of your birth.

However, I agree with EJay completely that this section is the weak link of this website because on one hand you are defending the men against the “evil” or “demon” stereotype, but at the same time promoting other stereotypes like “dumb” against blacks. It seems self-contradictory.
The only thing that I agree with is Watson’s freedom of speech.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Frank, once again you have not really answered anything other than the heritability and IQ issue. I will answer to that and this will be my last comment here.

Feynman’s IQ corrected for Flynn effect will be around 100 now. Poincare, one of the most creative mathematicians ever, actually FAILED an IQ test, so he was supposedly below average. Even 123 IQ means about 1 in 15 white people having it and millions of people worldwide having it. Feynman was considered one of the top minds of his time.

The whole concept of “g” has been labeled as a useless statistical artifact by many statisticians themselves.
It’s ridiculous really. More “g-loaded” portions means portions of the test that correlate more with other portions of test. And for the most part it means nothing more than portions related to greater simple raw skills like working memory, ability to count fast etc. One of the best predictors of “g” is backward digit span.

And how much statistical corrrelation with other parts is even important? Why is it important?
Flynn has already shown that more g-loaded tests like RPM or WISC have shown significant environmental gains. Jensen/Rushton reverts back to high g-loaded portion within those tests. That’s like a drowning man clutching at straws.

Many statisticians reject the validity of “g” and the error-prone methods used by Jensen, Murray etc. Jack Kaplan has pointed out many of that in “Misuse of statistics in the study of Intellegince”.

JACK KAPLAN(mathematician/statistician):

“The argument that IQ tests are valid measures of intelligence rests ultimately on the mathematically complex subject of statistical factor analysis, and therefore cannot be fully understood by people who lack technical training. But common sense should convince any reasonable person that something is fishy. Count me among those who regard the study of intelligence as more pseudo-science than science.”

Studies by David Marks in African countries like kenya have shown that the flynn effect is largely related to literacy and improvement in social conditions.

IQ doesn’t predict creativity and some have have even suggested that testosterone levels are far better predictors of creativity or genius.

That leaves me only to address the twin and adoption studies.
The IQ scores of identical twins tend to be closer than IQ of fraternal twins who are in turn closer than normal siblings.
This can be easily explained without a “genetic model”. All identical twins share 100% epigenome and prenatal environment. Fraternal twins share much less (about 50%) epigenome and prenatal environment. Normal siblings also share lesser epigenome, but they don’t even have same prenatal environment.
More interestingly, even the post-natal environment tend to be more similar for identical twins than fraternal twins who in turn tend to have more similar environment than normal siblings. This happens even if not deliberately designed to be that way.
See how easy it was to explain that?

I have already pointed out that adoption studies like the Minnesota one do not take into consideration the poorer placement of one group. This is also extremely true for twin adoption studies. Twins rarely get placed in a different social class, let alone different culture. In fact most separated twins are raised by different members of the same family (example- the pair’s uncle and grandfather).And in fact, studies based on several twin studies show that there has been 24 point gap between identical twins. That’s a HUGE amount. There was a big gap in the education and social background in which these twins were raised.

And let’s not forget that environmental influence has to be continuous because IQ is a relative scale. It’s like Alice in Wonderland, you have to run fast just
to stay where you are. If the childhood advantages on environment disappear in adulthood, then you tend to fall behind.

Now I believe that motivation and natural tendencies may be genetically determined to some extent. For example, I believe that higher testosterone levels results in greater goal-oriented aggression. This is probably a major reason why men are much more successful than women despite having a small amount of IQ advanatage. Women, however, have proven that they can be quite good if they try hard (which they are normally unwilling to do).

Unlike testosterone levels though, which are almost universally greater among men, there is little evidence of anything important being univerally greater in one socially defined race(a majority percentage does not count as “universal”). And even if there was something universally different, there is no reason why blacks can’t be successful if they try.

The utility of race plays a legitimate part in medical science. Now this does not mean that every ailment, cancer or disease has an established racial pattern but enough serious diseases do have such a pattern that the racial division is taken into account.

AB: Studies by David Marks in African countries like kenya have shown that the flynn effect is largely related to literacy and improvement in social conditions.

FRANK: And hereditarian scientists acknowledge that environment plays a part in intellectual development. The problem with Flynn is that his math is rather creative and non-sensical:

In fact, there is very little evidence of any significant narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap. Rushton and Jensen [25] disputed Dickens and Flynn’s [24] claim that Blacks gained 5.5 points by showing that Dickens and Flynn excluded several tests and then “projected” forward by multiplying a small gain from their highly select group of tests by more years than were available for most of the data. Dickens and Flynn excluded the Wonderlic Personnel Test, which showed a gain of only 2.4 points for Blacks between 1970 and 2001; the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), which showed a loss of 1 IQ point for Blacks between 1983 and 2004; the Woodcock-Johnson test, which showed a zero gain for Blacks; and the Differential Ability Scale, which showed a gain of only 1.83 points for Blacks between 1972 and 1986. Moreover, even the test data they did present did not directly support their conclusion. Simple arithmetic, rather than a multiplied projection, yielded a mean gain for Blacks of 3.4 points (23%), not the 5.5 points claimed (37%). Including the aforementioned tests reduced the gain from 3.4 to 2.1 points (14%). Nisbett does not explain how he arrived at an overall Black gain of 4.5 IQ points (30%) after including the four small (or negative) gain tests. Simple arithmetic applied to all eight tests yielded a mean gain for Blacks of only 2.1 points (14%).

Other researchers have also failed to find a significant narrowing of the Black-White gap over the 30 years covered. by Dickens and Flynn (i.e., from 1972 to 2002). For example, Murray [26, 27] concluded there was “no narrowing” in two independent studies. In the first, he found no narrowing in either verbal IQ or achievement test scores for children born to women in the 1979 sample of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. In the second, he found no narrowing for 6- to 65-year-olds in the Woodcock–Johnson standardizations of those born in the last half of the 1960s and early 1970s. When Roth et al. [9] confirmed the 1.1 SD difference in a sample of 6,246,729 corporate, military, and higher education testees, they also addressed the question of whether the differences were decreasing. They concluded that any reduction was “either small, potentially a function of sampling error…or nonexistent for highly g loaded instruments” [9, p. 323, our italics].

I have caught Flynn in some rather unique math personally. Flynn allegedly argues that the black and white IQ gap has decreased over the years. The average White American IQ is 99-100. By age 14 the American black IQ was 89.4 according to Flynn, this would support that the gap has closed by nearly 5 points. At age 18 the scores were 87 proving a gap closure of 2 points.

However, when the subjects were again tested at age 24, we see that the subjects had a score of 83.4. Flynn argued that the IQ gap closed by 5 to 7 points ignored that his own numbers illustrated hat gap widened to 1.6 points at age 24 and the gap was only closed by 2 points by age 18.

Flynn cherry picked the highest score during adolescents when IQ is elastic and pronounced a closure of the gap based on this one score. He conveniently omitted the numbers that did not support his argument.

AB: JACK KAPLAN(mathematician/statistician):

“The argument that IQ tests are valid measures of intelligence rests ultimately on the mathematically complex subject of statistical factor analysis, and therefore cannot be fully understood by people who lack technical training. But common sense should convince any reasonable person that something is fishy. Count me among those who regard the study of intelligence as more pseudo-science than science.”

The IQ scores of identical twins tend to be closer than IQ of fraternal twins who are in turn closer than normal siblings.
This can be easily explained without a “genetic model”. All identical twins share 100% epigenome and prenatal environment. Fraternal twins share much less (about 50%) epigenome and prenatal environment. Normal siblings also share lesser epigenome, but they don’t even have same prenatal environment.

More interestingly, even the post-natal environment tend to be more similar for identical twins than fraternal twins who in turn tend to have more similar environment than normal siblings. This happens even if not deliberately designed to be that way.

See how easy it was to explain that?

FRANK: You have not provided any information that would lead me to treat the following as flawed:

Heritabilities of 50%–80% are found for both brain size and GMA as well as the
relation between them. For example, Bouchard and McGue (2003) reviewed data on more than 10,000 pairs of identical and same-sex fraternal twins living together and found the mean correlations were 0.86 and 0.60, respectively. They also found that for identical twins reared apart, the correlation was almost as high as for identical twins reared together (r = 0.78 for 93 pairs). For more than 27,000 pairs of nontwin siblings living together, the correlation was 0.49.

Detailed three-dimensional brain maps reveal how brain structure is inﬂuenced by individual genetic differences. In a study of 10 identical and 10 same-sex fraternal twin pairs (N = 40), Thompson et al. (2001) found a genetic continuum in which brain structure was increasingly similar in subjects with increasing genetic afﬁnity. Genetic factors were most marked in cortical structures in Broca’s and Wenicke’s language areas, as well as in frontal brain regions, which appeared to mediate differences in GMA in this study. Evidence suggests that the age, SEP, sex, and population group differences are at least partly heritable because the heritabilities are about the same magnitude in all groups (Jensen, 1998; Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGufﬁn, 2001). Moreover, Rushton, Bons, et al. (2007) estimated the heritability of scores on the diagrammatic puzzles of the Raven’s Matrices a culture-reduced test of GMA, from data on the identical twins from the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart and found the differences between East Asians, Europeans, South Asians, and Africans were all more pronounced on the more heritable items (mean r = 0.40; Ns = 58; p < 0.05). This ﬁnding implies at least some genetic causation for the group differences. However, more deﬁnitive evidence will require the identiﬁcation of the speciﬁc genes involved, although such evidence has been slow in coming (Plomin, Kennedy, & Craig, 2006)

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 00

AB: I have already pointed out that adoption studies like the Minnesota one do not take into consideration the poorer placement of one group. This is also extremely true for twin adoption studies. Twins rarely get placed in a different social class, let alone different culture. In fact most separated twins are raised by different members of the same family (example- the pair’s uncle and grandfather).And in fact, studies based on several twin studies show that there has been 24 point gap between identical twins. That’s a HUGE amount. There was a big gap in the education and social background in which these twins were raised.

FRANK: You continue to ignore the following points:

1) The black youth benefited from their environment. If anything the unrefined MTRAS illustrated that their average IQ was 4 points higher than the normal mean for their groups.

2) The mulatto subjects who “suffered” the same treatment as the black youth, the were mistake for blacks. However, they managed to score in between the white and black median. Even at age 17, the maintained an IQ between their White and Black counterparts.

3) The regression took place universally, all three groups thrived in their controlled environments yet they all regressed toward the means for their groups. The White subjects fell closer to the 100 average for Whites, the Black youth fell closer to their racial mean of 85 while Mulatto’s fell in-between.

Frank says:

AB: The last part of my reply was meant to be at the end and mainly for Frank. Instead, it gets posted where I was trying to post a link.

FRANK: Regarding twins you may be interested in the following:

We carried out two studies to test the hypothesis that genetic and environmental inﬂuences explain population group differences in general mental ability just as they do individual differences within a group. We estimated the heritability and environmentality of scores on the diagrammatic puzzles of the Raven’s Coloured and/or Standard Progressive Matrices (CPM/SPM) from two independent twin samples and correlated these estimates with group differences on the same items. In Study 1, 199 pairs of 5- to 7-year-old monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins reared together provided estimates of heritability and environmentality for 36 puzzles from the CPM. These estimates correlated with the differences between the twins and 94 Serbian Roma (both rsZ0.32; NsZ36; ps!0.05). In Study 2, 152 pairs of adult MZ and DZ twins reared apart provided estimates of heritability and environmentality for 58 puzzles from the SPM. These estimates correlated with the differences among 11 diverse samples including (i) the reared-apart twins, (ii) another sample of Serbian Roma, and (iii) East Asian, White, South Asian, Coloured and Black high school and university students in South Africa. In 55 comparisons, group differences were more pronounced on the more heritable and on the more environmental items (mean rsZ0.40 and 0.47, respectively; NsZ58; ps!0.05). After controlling for measurement reliability and variance in item pass rates, the heritabilities still correlated with the group differences, although the environmentalities did not.

Puzzles found relatively difﬁcult (or easy) by the twins were those found relatively difﬁcult (or easy) by the others (mean rZ0.87). These results suggest that population group differences are part of the normal variation expected within a universal human cognition

Frank says:

AB: Frank, once again you have not really answered anything other than the heritability and IQ issue. I will answer to that and this will be my last comment here.

FRANK: The simple fact is you have provided little beyond IQ etc.. that warrants a response.

FOR EXAMPLE:

AB: I already agreed that geographical classifications can be done and in some areas like forensics – it can still serve as a “useful tool”. But I pointed out that that still makes the notion of “white” and “black” social constructs since classifications can be done in other ways, even geographically. That should be enough to put “race” to bed.

FRANK: This is by far the most silly non-sequitur I have ever read on any forum. It does not follow that because one could genetically map every human being individually or by numerous magical criteria that one cannot scientifically classify black and white.

AB: Why should group results even be important if we can see individual results? Would you pick a 4 feet black person for your basketball team over a 6.5 feet white? Generalizing too much in medicine can kill. I already pointed that out.

FRANK: This is the second most silly comment I have read on this forum. You really think that such a ridiculous argument even deserves a response?

AB says:

I just came so say Merry Christmas to everyone, since this is one website I visited today and since it may be weeks before I visit again. And it will be certainly not this section next time.

I have already promised I will not continue this debate.
I am getting the feeling, Frank, that you did not even understand what I am saying since you just keep sidestepping and repeating.

I will end with this(not a part of the debate):
Races don’t exist.
“white” and “black” are social constructs because of the geographic continuum and interbreeding. Scientifically classify them? To do that you have define them scientifically. One cannot even define them properly. Obama can be defined as white as easily as he can be defined as black. Only pseudoscientists will try to classify them. Of course geographic traits exists. But just how you divide them into groups is a matter of choice. There is even no logic to saying that they can be “scientifically” classified. They can be classified, but according to whims, not in any meaningful scientific way.

Frank says:

Like or Dislike: 01

AB: I am getting the feeling, Frank, that you did not even understand what I am saying since you just keep sidestepping and repeating.

FRANK: I understand what you are saying but most of what you are regurgitating comes from Lewontin-Fallacy 101. You also ignore evidence while accusing me of doing that very thing. You argue that “race does not exist” but you ignore every shred of evidence to the contrary of that view.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 11

That is very interesting. The Flynn effect has been debunked by Rushton? At least partially?

Sorry that posts with too many links need my approval. You might consider splitting up some posts into several ones. Or just wait for my approval. Actually, you were already registered, I send you another password now.

I also registered AB and EgalitarianJay. Hope everyone gave their true email address.

You are a contributor, you may even write posts that I would then have to approve. A summary of the race and IQ issues, with links to the more important papers and discussions, including arguments of the opponents and their debunking, would be a great article.

The links are very important, so they should not be omitted. Alternatively, I ended up registering you guys and then it probably gets accepted automatically.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 11

Thanks, admin, for registering us.

And no, Flynn effect HASN’T been debunked. Flynn Effect is the strongest on g-loaded tests like Raven’s progressive matrices. Rushton and Jensen have cherry picked one or two studies so that it looks that Black IQ drops in adulthood. The reason for that is that those tests simply ignores the drop in motivational and environmental factors. In reality, though, MAJORITY of studies show that IQ is fairly stable after age 7.

Rushton and Jensen then went for more g-loaded portions within those tests after Flynn demonstrated the effect. That’s like a drowning man clutching at straws.

Rather, Rushton and Jensen’s use of statistics has been debunked by statisticians themselves.
Read “misuse of statistics in the study of intelligence”. The use of IQ tests and “g” is circular logic really. And they have confused correlation with causation.

Moreover,I have already shown that heritability is a meaningless concept without defining a relevant environment. MRI scans of the same person can change significantly over time. If you practice juggling or meditate for months, your brain scan will be different. MRI, just like genes, is merely a new tool to which pseudoscience can be applied. Robert Epstein has pointed out many of that in his articles.

As for the fallacies of using race-based medicine, you may consider watching this video.

EgalitarianJay... says:

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 01

Frank, there is no evidence, not even a single shred, in support of race. There is only some politically motivated pseudoscience.

You have yet to answer:
Why average of groups is important than individual performance?
Why the arbitrary classification of black and white is important, if classifications can be done many other ways, even based on geographic traits?
How one defines black or white if there is no scientific way to define it?
How do you justify statistical misuse in IQ studies?
Explain why IQ is important if many successful people do not have super-high IQs and if it can increase.
Why use the hereditarian falacy if the concept of heritable doesn’t make sense?
How do you explain Flynn effect being strongest in g-loded tests and highest in the socially backward classes?
And even assuming that blacks are not closing the gap as quickly as Flynn states, it is closing and you fail to give explanations.
Explain that just motivating a group for some time can make them improve their performance in IQ test by 7 points more than normal.
Explain why simply ignore the immidiate rise in IQ scores produced by educational interventions.
Give us ONE, just ONE allele for intelligence that is in ALL members of one race and ONLY in them. If you can’t do that do that, you are trying in vain.

Also, there is no fallacy in Lewontin’s argument.
Only racists think that way. Hereditarianism is itself a falacy, as I have logically demonstrated.

EgalitarianJay... says:

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 01

The problem is that I only have an old Youtube account that I created to bypass age restriction.
It does not allow me comment since I used a fake email ID that I could not register.

I sometimes use a friend’s account, which he said that he doesn’t use anymore. He said I am free to use it in emergency, but I am hesitating to give it away. I will either try to create a new account soon or ask for his permission because I plan on uploading some sports based videos. When I do that, i will pm you.

I have to confess, though, that I prefer anonymous blog talks than registering. That’s why I suggested using a different blog where you are more comfortable.

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 11

EgalitarianJay, I will PM you on your youtube channel when I have the time(maybe next month). Currently, I want a break and I have other things to do.
Anyway, interestingly, I followed admin’s link and related videos and found that plenty of youtuber’s have anti-racist videos.Here is one:http://www.youtube.com/user/EvoGenVideos#p/u

I hate getting into debates. It never gets us anywhere since the vast majority have a strong bias.
I have stated my reasons, EJay has stated his and Frank has his.
If a neutral person comes across, then he is free to look,think and decide for himself.
I don’t know why I came back to this. But this time I will definitely stay away from this section.
I don’t think I can convince Frank (or the admin). I will keep going to other sections when I have time, but this is the end of my discussion here.

One last words to admin. I am surprised that you don’t consider racial stereotypes as stupid. We do agree that anti-male stereotypes are stupid. Even if I assume that “whites” on the average are “smarter” than “blacks”, I really don’t know how it is important.

IMO any politically motivated research that trashes one group is stupid.

Frank says:

FRANK: Who says it is more important? It does hold importance though if we base social and political policy on the fact that any minority short coming must be based on racism and racism alone.

AB: Why the arbitrary classification of black and white is important, if classifications can be done many other ways, even based on geographic traits?

FRANK: I could “classify” based on “hair colour” or fingernail length if I choose to do so. I can legitimately classify genders and I can even classify geographical groups based on artificially created citizenship laws.

However, none of this changes the fact that we can classify population groups by race. Just because we may be able to classify one western chimp, as they contain great genetic diversity, from another does not mean there are no sub-species of chimps.

AB: How one defines black or white if there is no scientific way to define it?

FRANK: There are scientific ways to define these things. It has been done genetically, forensically and anthropologically. Medical scientists use race as a tool in diagnosis and treatments.

You simply ignore any evidence that goes against your belief structure.

AB: How do you justify statistical misuse in IQ studies? Explain why IQ is important if many successful people do not have super-high IQs and if it can increase.

FRANK: When discussing IQ’s in the average to superior range it is not overly important. However, when discussing IQ in groups with much smaller scores, this can have great effect in how we deal with those groups.

How do we best help them? How do we assist them in creating a quality a decent quality of life? Some would ask should we even attempt to do so but leave them alone and to their own devices?

AB: How do you explain Flynn effect being strongest in g-loded tests and highest in the socially backward classes?
And even assuming that blacks are not closing the gap as quickly as Flynn states, it is closing and you fail to give explanations.

FRANK:I have already provided explanations that you have completely ignored.

1) Some portions of older g-loaded tests lose their g-loadedness over time. However, critiques by Rushton illustrated that black subjects still performed less than average over the most g-loaded sections of the tests while the lesser loaded questions improved.

2) If we use Flynn’s own numbers the gap has not decreased at all AB. By age 18 the black scores almost mimic the scores from 17 year old blacks from the MTRAS.

By age 24, the black IQ regresses toward 83.4 which actually increases the gap by 1.6 points. As the brain develops and the elasticity leaves through age the black IQ returns to a score closest to its mean.

3) Flynn has been cited for cherry-picking information. Flynn ignored g-loaded tests that illustrated a black failure to close the gap. He only used tests that supported his viewpoint on the issue.

AB: Also, there is no fallacy in Lewontin’s argument.

FRANK: There certainly is a fallacy in the conclusion.

AB: So, there is no “convergence” in adulthood.

You have no argument really. All you have done is presented some shallow pseudoscientific studies by hereditarians.

FRANK: The regression toward the mean was even cited in Flynns studies. The regression toward the means have been shown in numerous twin studies not to mention transracial adoption studies with a adult follow-up.

If you consider a cheesy 4 minute youtube video with crappy Sesame Street music to be a real scientific counter to all of these studies, you are not qualified to lecture me on pseudo-scientists.

[…] mentioning the tip of the iceberg, much more thorough analysis is needed. Why do the races (which allegedly are socially constructed and don’t exist) have such clearly different opinion in the Trayvon Martin – George Zimmermann case, as in […]

I wonder how many of the Maloney’s reedar’s have donated to the Boys and Girls Club since they are so VERY concerned about an inner city Boys and Girls Club?No thanks, I prefer to give to my local church were I can attend weekly and measure the progress of my giving in the lives of my community. Besides, why would I send money to Gloria Wise of all places, who would with hold money from innocent kids and “loan” my money to Air America?